WP: Even as gas prices rattle economy, Americans can’t stay off the road

[Shane]

I'd suggest that starting by improving public transport in metro areas is a good start.

It's not going to be possible to turn cities like Atlanta into cities like Amsterdam. However if public transport is a more viable alternative to replace at least some trips (ie commuting) it's a start.

The other issue is that less expensive housing is more likely to have poor quality transit options. How do you avoid making a two-tier city?

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

As long as driving anywhere in a car remains the cheapest and most convenient way to get there, we can build all the public transport we want, but nobody's going to ride it. People won't start using public transit until driving a car back and forth to work starts costing them more than they earn, or parking they can afford ceases to exist in the places they want/need to drive to. Even then, many Americans will continue to refuse to change.

[chemistk]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer.

That's a regressive policy that is likely to harm the poor quicker than it will disincentivize the upper middle class or rich from carrying on with their daily habits. That's the entire premise of what's currently happening with used car and gas prices that sparked this entire conversation.

The ‘more expensive’ part is potentially regressive, depending on how it is implemented.  Certainly could be implemented in a non-regressive or progressive way.  You did ignore all the other points I made in my post that were in no way regressive.  Make car ownership and use annoying and more inconvenient than other options, except on specialized cases.  Enhance public transit across the board.  Focus on walkability, bike-ability, and safety/convenience/cost of non-driving options.

I quoted your post in its entirety. If you want to point me to which other of your comments you're referring to, I'll address those.

I get a lot of what you and PDXtabs are referring to, but both of your views are clouded by where you've lived and currently live. You moved from CA to a WA college town. He lives in Portland. I've lived in / near all 3 of those areas and they're certainly feasible to have transit function well for tons of people. I will say the MAX in Portland was often too full though and therefore was unreliable for me to make it to work on time.
What I'm unsure of is whether either of you have spent any time living anywhere outside those self contained (B-ham), or larger meccas and have ever tried to fathom the sheer amount of miles and insane costs of trying to service areas / states that aren't populated like the I5 corridor.  I now live in Missouri, a state with 6 million people, 70,000 square miles and likely only transit in the 4 largest cities. About a 3rd of the state's people have any access to local transit. How do you plan on imposing your ideas in an area like here, when much of the country is like this? How can you propose raising costs and "making it hard" without a viable alternative to add value to their lives?

The point isn't and should never be to coerce people out of what they have right now, although I'm sure there are many who would like to take that approach. But the continued subsidization of people who live away from readily accessible urban areas is, frankly, unsustainable. Over the course of a few decades, the most ideal policy would see people who live rurally who also aren't involved in agriculture & its support able to maintain that lifestyle at a premium.

No matter what way you paint it, anything that isn't completely equitable for urban dwellers and rural residents alike is always going to be painted as a revocation of the right to live wherever one chooses, and that status quo is always going to economically favor the people who live rurally no matter how equitable it seems on paper.

The dense urban centers at the state and national level (if you consider SoCal, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. to be nationally viable economic engines) end up paying, one way or another, for those who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere - through the maintenance of roads, utilities (including water and sewer in some places), postal routes, emergency services, schools, etc. There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs)  shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.

I'd also think that this shift would happen in an almost natural process - significant urban centers build out accessible mass transportation over the span of decades and as those places become less expensive to live and work in, the next few generations will migrate toward those areas. That doesn't mean that small town life and non-major cities will disappear, but we are going to have to suffer the loss of a number of small towns as they become too expensive to live in. I'm all for propping up the remaining years of folks who want to die in their small town, and I'm also for the subsidized relocation of folks who would rather move to a more accessible area sooner. The current idea that your progeny would be able to live in perpetuity in a small (especially non-agricultural or mining) town while maintaining today's status quo is just not sustainable. If you believe that you can afford to live on your own, self funding all but state road maintenance, then kudos - but right now far too much time and money is poured into the maintenance of little towns across the middle of nowhere in every state.

[wageslave23]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer.

That's a regressive policy that is likely to harm the poor quicker than it will disincentivize the upper middle class or rich from carrying on with their daily habits. That's the entire premise of what's currently happening with used car and gas prices that sparked this entire conversation.

The ‘more expensive’ part is potentially regressive, depending on how it is implemented.  Certainly could be implemented in a non-regressive or progressive way.  You did ignore all the other points I made in my post that were in no way regressive.  Make car ownership and use annoying and more inconvenient than other options, except on specialized cases.  Enhance public transit across the board.  Focus on walkability, bike-ability, and safety/convenience/cost of non-driving options.

I quoted your post in its entirety. If you want to point me to which other of your comments you're referring to, I'll address those.

I get a lot of what you and PDXtabs are referring to, but both of your views are clouded by where you've lived and currently live. You moved from CA to a WA college town. He lives in Portland. I've lived in / near all 3 of those areas and they're certainly feasible to have transit function well for tons of people. I will say the MAX in Portland was often too full though and therefore was unreliable for me to make it to work on time.
What I'm unsure of is whether either of you have spent any time living anywhere outside those self contained (B-ham), or larger meccas and have ever tried to fathom the sheer amount of miles and insane costs of trying to service areas / states that aren't populated like the I5 corridor.  I now live in Missouri, a state with 6 million people, 70,000 square miles and likely only transit in the 4 largest cities. About a 3rd of the state's people have any access to local transit. How do you plan on imposing your ideas in an area like here, when much of the country is like this? How can you propose raising costs and "making it hard" without a viable alternative to add value to their lives?

The point isn't and should never be to coerce people out of what they have right now, although I'm sure there are many who would like to take that approach. But the continued subsidization of people who live away from readily accessible urban areas is, frankly, unsustainable. Over the course of a few decades, the most ideal policy would see people who live rurally who also aren't involved in agriculture & its support able to maintain that lifestyle at a premium.

No matter what way you paint it, anything that isn't completely equitable for urban dwellers and rural residents alike is always going to be painted as a revocation of the right to live wherever one chooses, and that status quo is always going to economically favor the people who live rurally no matter how equitable it seems on paper.

The dense urban centers at the state and national level (if you consider SoCal, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. to be nationally viable economic engines) end up paying, one way or another, for those who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere - through the maintenance of roads, utilities (including water and sewer in some places), postal routes, emergency services, schools, etc. There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs)  shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.

I'd also think that this shift would happen in an almost natural process - significant urban centers build out accessible mass transportation over the span of decades and as those places become less expensive to live and work in, the next few generations will migrate toward those areas. That doesn't mean that small town life and non-major cities will disappear, but we are going to have to suffer the loss of a number of small towns as they become too expensive to live in. I'm all for propping up the remaining years of folks who want to die in their small town, and I'm also for the subsidized relocation of folks who would rather move to a more accessible area sooner. The current idea that your progeny would be able to live in perpetuity in a small (especially non-agricultural or mining) town while maintaining today's status quo is just not sustainable. If you believe that you can afford to live on your own, self funding all but state road maintenance, then kudos - but right now far too much time and money is poured into the maintenance of little towns across the middle of nowhere in every state.

I think you are right on. Subsidizing inefficiency is never good for society as a whole.  Societies and economies change and its better to help people adapt than encourage them to stick with their inefficient ways. Make taxes on miles driven enough to support the road systems.  That way it naturally curbs driving to only what is most efficient. 

[Arbitrage]

Yes, we need to make owning and driving cars more expensive and less convenient (i.e. make them reflect their true cost to society)..  Concurrently need to seriously invest in making sustainable transportation/infrastructure better and safer.

That's a regressive policy that is likely to harm the poor quicker than it will disincentivize the upper middle class or rich from carrying on with their daily habits. That's the entire premise of what's currently happening with used car and gas prices that sparked this entire conversation.

The ‘more expensive’ part is potentially regressive, depending on how it is implemented.  Certainly could be implemented in a non-regressive or progressive way.  You did ignore all the other points I made in my post that were in no way regressive.  Make car ownership and use annoying and more inconvenient than other options, except on specialized cases.  Enhance public transit across the board.  Focus on walkability, bike-ability, and safety/convenience/cost of non-driving options.

I quoted your post in its entirety. If you want to point me to which other of your comments you're referring to, I'll address those.

I get a lot of what you and PDXtabs are referring to, but both of your views are clouded by where you've lived and currently live. You moved from CA to a WA college town. He lives in Portland. I've lived in / near all 3 of those areas and they're certainly feasible to have transit function well for tons of people. I will say the MAX in Portland was often too full though and therefore was unreliable for me to make it to work on time.
What I'm unsure of is whether either of you have spent any time living anywhere outside those self contained (B-ham), or larger meccas and have ever tried to fathom the sheer amount of miles and insane costs of trying to service areas / states that aren't populated like the I5 corridor.  I now live in Missouri, a state with 6 million people, 70,000 square miles and likely only transit in the 4 largest cities. About a 3rd of the state's people have any access to local transit. How do you plan on imposing your ideas in an area like here, when much of the country is like this? How can you propose raising costs and "making it hard" without a viable alternative to add value to their lives?

I have spent 21 of the past 22 years living in the second and thirteenth largest metro areas in the United States, so yeah I'm well aware of other situations.  I also have lived in the eastern megalopolis, and mid-sized cities in the midwest, east coast, and south.  Small towns in the south and mountain west.  I've been to 48 of 50 states.  Between all of that, I think I have a good amount of perspective.  I already stated previously that the focus should be on the 3% of this country - the urban areas - that house 81% of the people.  We already have infrastructure for the rural areas that is appropriate; they're not being choked to death by cars, highways, and parking lots.  Mass transit, other than long-haul between cities - isn't appropriate for rural areas. 

The solutions aren't overnight or even over a decade, but every step should be in the direction of taking cars out of cities to the extent practical.  200+ billion per year on roads and road maintenance.  20 billion per year on oil subsidies.  Untold billions on the lost opportunity costs of parking lots taking up 15% of your usable city space (i.e. parking lots pay near-zero in taxes, and are completely unproductive).  A brand new $1 trillion infrastructure bill.  There is money out there.  To finish everything?  Of course not, but you start taking the journey, and eventually you get there.

No, you're not going to walk from San Bernardino to downtown Los Angeles, but you certainly should be able to bike to a train station, take a train downtown, then hop off with your bike.  Far better than spending 2 hours each direction in a smoggy mess. 

[fuzzy math]

I have spent 21 of the past 22 years living in the second and thirteenth largest metro areas in the United States, so yeah I'm well aware of other situations.  I also have lived in the eastern megalopolis, and mid-sized cities in the midwest, east coast, and south.  Small towns in the south and mountain west.  I've been to 48 of 50 states.  Between all of that, I think I have a good amount of perspective.  I already stated previously that the focus should be on the 3% of this country - the urban areas - that house 81% of the people.  We already have infrastructure for the rural areas that is appropriate; they're not being choked to death by cars, highways, and parking lots.  Mass transit, other than long-haul between cities - isn't appropriate for rural areas. 

The solutions aren't overnight or even over a decade, but every step should be in the direction of taking cars out of cities to the extent practical.  200+ billion per year on roads and road maintenance.  20 billion per year on oil subsidies.  Untold billions on the lost opportunity costs of parking lots taking up 15% of your usable city space (i.e. parking lots pay near-zero in taxes, and are completely unproductive).  A brand new $1 trillion infrastructure bill.  There is money out there.  To finish everything?  Of course not, but you start taking the journey, and eventually you get there.

No, you're not going to walk from San Bernardino to downtown Los Angeles, but you certainly should be able to bike to a train station, take a train downtown, then hop off with your bike.  Far better than spending 2 hours each direction in a smoggy mess.

I'm glad you aren't advocating for the punitive measures that others (the 2 previous comments) seem to focus on.

Much of the road maintenance and oil subsidies are necessary due to truckers. Not sure that everyone will like the "per mile driven" tax once it hits every personal item purchased.
We can remove many of the personal vehicles on the road through better policy but ironically the most efficient drivers (not the F150s) are the ones most likely to alter their behaviors.

Progressive WA used to have vehicle taxes based on value but about 15 yrs ago a decidedly non progressive flat rate vehicle tab fee went up for vote and those same progressives voted for the cheaper fees. WA has also voted down a state income tax for the wealthy, and other more fair forms of taxation. It turns out that people like a lot of things in theory, but vote against them when reality threatens to hit their wallet. THAT is the struggle of implementing policies that make actual change.

[GuitarStv]

Much of the road maintenance and oil subsidies are necessary due to truckers. Not sure that everyone will like the "per mile driven" tax once it hits every personal item purchased.
We can remove many of the personal vehicles on the road through better policy but ironically the most efficient drivers (not the F150s) are the ones most likely to alter their behaviors.

Why not directly subsidize truckers then?  Remove the road maintenance and oil subsidies, and let automobile transportation cost what it really should.

Seems like a better policy that would remove a lot of cars from the road.

[Jon Bon]

The dense urban centers at the state and national level (if you consider SoCal, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. to be nationally viable economic engines) end up paying, one way or another, for those who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere - through the maintenance of roads, utilities (including water and sewer in some places), postal routes, emergency services, schools, etc. There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs)  shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.

Initially I agreed with this comment. But then I thought about it some and looked up some data on it. Maybe its not exactly what you were referring too, but I thought it was good info.

I don't think the problem is John Smith in Norman Oklahoma traveling 60 miles to work every day in an F150. He is often the target of peoples ire, but that is not really the issue. In a way yes he should not do that, but there are simply not enough of him to make a difference. He does not really wait in traffic or stress an over taxed infrastructure.

Really good stuff by the census bureau: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2013/demo/SEHSD-WP2013-03.pdf

Basically according to the link above it is the huge urban areas that we need to focus on. The "mega commuters" all live in the exurbs of the major cities, and they use the most resources to get to work. In terms of gas, but also in terms of space on the interstate or train. Now many of these folks do in fact take public transit. Which I guess is fine, but they still are "consuming" that spot for longer then the average commuter.

If people want to live in the middle of nowhere they can, furthermore its hella easier to build infrastructure in the middle of nowhere then it is to do so in a packed city.

I am not saying I am right or anything, but in terms of time spent consuming travel resources the mega commuters are the undisputed winner.

 

[Paper Chaser]

The point isn't and should never be to coerce people out of what they have right now, although I'm sure there are many who would like to take that approach. But the continued subsidization of people who live away from readily accessible urban areas is, frankly, unsustainable. Over the course of a few decades, the most ideal policy would see people who live rurally who also aren't involved in agriculture & its support able to maintain that lifestyle at a premium.

There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs)  shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.

How are you defining rural, and what constitutes "supporting" agriculture? You'd need fueling stations, or a depot that sends trucks out. You'd need a place to provide parts and service for tractors and vehicles. Maybe a veterinarian's office for livestock? And the people that work in those businesses would have families that might need schools with teachers and staff. All of those buildings would probably justify a hardware or home improvement store of some type. Restaurants? Police/fire/EMS? Medical offices and/or a hospital? All of a sudden, we're talking about a lot of people "supporting" agriculture, and it's really no different than the small towns that dot the landscape already. I'm just curious where you draw the line, because it seems a lot like trying to determine who is and isn't an "essential worker".

[FIPurpose]

The dense urban centers at the state and national level (if you consider SoCal, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. to be nationally viable economic engines) end up paying, one way or another, for those who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere - through the maintenance of roads, utilities (including water and sewer in some places), postal routes, emergency services, schools, etc. There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs)  shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.

Initially I agreed with this comment. But then I thought about it some and looked up some data on it. Maybe its not exactly what you were referring too, but I thought it was good info.

I don't think the problem is John Smith in Norman Oklahoma traveling 60 miles to work every day in an F150. He is often the target of peoples ire, but that is not really the issue. In a way yes he should not do that, but there are simply not enough of him to make a difference. He does not really wait in traffic or stress an over taxed infrastructure.

Really good stuff by the census bureau: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2013/demo/SEHSD-WP2013-03.pdf

Basically according to the link above it is the huge urban areas that we need to focus on. The "mega commuters" all live in the exurbs of the major cities, and they use the most resources to get to work. In terms of gas, but also in terms of space on the interstate or train. Now many of these folks do in fact take public transit. Which I guess is fine, but they still are "consuming" that spot for longer then the average commuter.

If people want to live in the middle of nowhere they can, furthermore its hella easier to build infrastructure in the middle of nowhere then it is to do so in a packed city.

I am not saying I am right or anything, but in terms of time spent consuming travel resources the mega commuters are the undisputed winner.

I agree that the problem is less super rural people and more the outer suburban commuters. The people who live 60-30 miles away from the city centers that they work in are the major issue. We need more, smaller work centers. These exurbs need their own work spaces that people can work from without having to drive 30-60 miles everyday. The problem is that this would require a huge paradigm shift in how office space is used, how companies purchase office space, and how all of these shared spaces would be funded.

These are also the people that need to be disincentivized from buying these homes and driving their personal vehicles to work. I think owning a car is fine, increasing the gas tax to be more in line with Europe makes the most sense to me to disincentivize this behavior (which also has even larger down stream savings on roads/bridges) How many rail projects are canceled due to prohibitive costs in this country because all funding goes to commuter roads? I know that discussions on an I-5 tram from Vancouver to PDX have been in discussion forever, but people don't like the upfront costs even though it's recognized as the best long-term solution. Even a modest gas tax on commuters would easily pay for public transit. It just takes political will.

The SFH's are already there, the problem is that there's no real community of businesses or shared space so everyone drives everywhere to do anything.

[wageslave23]

Much of the road maintenance and oil subsidies are necessary due to truckers. Not sure that everyone will like the "per mile driven" tax once it hits every personal item purchased.
We can remove many of the personal vehicles on the road through better policy but ironically the most efficient drivers (not the F150s) are the ones most likely to alter their behaviors.

Why not directly subsidize truckers then?  Remove the road maintenance and oil subsidies, and let automobile transportation cost what it really should.

Seems like a better policy that would remove a lot of cars from the road.

Why would we subsidize truckers? Let shipping costs rise and let those costs be passed on to the consumer. This will modify both corporate and consumer behavior so that less shipping takes place. A long term win for everyone. 

[SpaceCow]

Much of the road maintenance and oil subsidies are necessary due to truckers. Not sure that everyone will like the "per mile driven" tax once it hits every personal item purchased.
We can remove many of the personal vehicles on the road through better policy but ironically the most efficient drivers (not the F150s) are the ones most likely to alter their behaviors.

Why not directly subsidize truckers then?  Remove the road maintenance and oil subsidies, and let automobile transportation cost what it really should.

Seems like a better policy that would remove a lot of cars from the road.

Why would we subsidize truckers? Let shipping costs rise and let those costs be passed on to the consumer. This will modify both corporate and consumer behavior so that less shipping takes place. A long term win for everyone. 

Yeah, we would surely start to see rail freight transportation getting the attention it deserves.

[GuitarStv]

Much of the road maintenance and oil subsidies are necessary due to truckers. Not sure that everyone will like the "per mile driven" tax once it hits every personal item purchased.
We can remove many of the personal vehicles on the road through better policy but ironically the most efficient drivers (not the F150s) are the ones most likely to alter their behaviors.

Why not directly subsidize truckers then?  Remove the road maintenance and oil subsidies, and let automobile transportation cost what it really should.

Seems like a better policy that would remove a lot of cars from the road.

Why would we subsidize truckers? Let shipping costs rise and let those costs be passed on to the consumer. This will modify both corporate and consumer behavior so that less shipping takes place. A long term win for everyone. 

Yeah, we would surely start to see rail freight transportation getting the attention it deserves.

Good point.  We should probably stop subsidizing certain forms of transportation and let the market pick the winners and losers.

[chemistk]

The dense urban centers at the state and national level (if you consider SoCal, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. to be nationally viable economic engines) end up paying, one way or another, for those who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere - through the maintenance of roads, utilities (including water and sewer in some places), postal routes, emergency services, schools, etc. There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs)  shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.

Initially I agreed with this comment. But then I thought about it some and looked up some data on it. Maybe its not exactly what you were referring too, but I thought it was good info.

I don't think the problem is John Smith in Norman Oklahoma traveling 60 miles to work every day in an F150. He is often the target of peoples ire, but that is not really the issue. In a way yes he should not do that, but there are simply not enough of him to make a difference. He does not really wait in traffic or stress an over taxed infrastructure.

Really good stuff by the census bureau: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2013/demo/SEHSD-WP2013-03.pdf

Basically according to the link above it is the huge urban areas that we need to focus on. The "mega commuters" all live in the exurbs of the major cities, and they use the most resources to get to work. In terms of gas, but also in terms of space on the interstate or train. Now many of these folks do in fact take public transit. Which I guess is fine, but they still are "consuming" that spot for longer then the average commuter.

If people want to live in the middle of nowhere they can, furthermore its hella easier to build infrastructure in the middle of nowhere then it is to do so in a packed city.

I am not saying I am right or anything, but in terms of time spent consuming travel resources the mega commuters are the undisputed winner.

I agree, fully:

-When these arguments crop up there's always quite a bit of hand wringing over the fact that the US is vast and has much lower population density than many other countries. Proposals like the hyperloop and ultra high speed transcontinental rail are both unrealistic and missing the point. For the very reason you mention (population density surrounding urban centers), the focus of accessible rapid transit should be where the return from the investment is greatest: already established residential communities that surround major and minor urban centers. I personally would like to take public transit to work, but I can't. I would love to travel within my own region by train, but unless I'm headed to the biggest cities, I can't.

-The idea that small towns across the country are low-impact from a commuting or even fuel consumption perspective isn't the point. All those county roads, electric, gas, regional police, EMS, etc. have to exist to enable those places to be livable. Sure, there are plenty of folks who live out truly without support but that's not the case for the people who live in Manchester, IL (I just randomly zoomed into the US to the first small town I hit) - the lives of the people there have merit and I bet it's a nice place to be if you want to live there.

But is it appropriate to assume that its residents can just live there forever? Again, i don't advocate for the razing of these communities - far from it. Instead, would the needs of the likely large cohort in that town be met if they had the means to move away to a more accessible, densely populated area? I'd argue that. It sucks to think that a place you were born and raised might one day disappear off the map because the community just doesn't have the funding to sustain itself. But that exact thing happens all the time. And it would certainly happen more if residents of those towns had the resources to relocate.

Instead of letting these communities stumble along forever, incurring mounting costs for maintenance of infrastructure and the necessary support services associated, which certainly is enormously expensive when you consider the thousands of towns like that, why not let some of them gracefully disappear off the map instead of keeping residents trapped in those towns because there aren't enough high paying jobs to keep the population much above poverty levels.

From the Manchester, IL wikipedia entry:

The Village re-established the village fire department in the summer of 1997. The department grew exponentially until 2009 when Mayor Ron Drake took over as Fire Chief and bankrupted the department. The Village still has two of the fire trucks, but has no members who know how to operate them or is licensed to drive them, including Mayor Drake.

The point isn't and should never be to coerce people out of what they have right now, although I'm sure there are many who would like to take that approach. But the continued subsidization of people who live away from readily accessible urban areas is, frankly, unsustainable. Over the course of a few decades, the most ideal policy would see people who live rurally who also aren't involved in agriculture & its support able to maintain that lifestyle at a premium.

There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs)  shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.

How are you defining rural, and what constitutes "supporting" agriculture? You'd need fueling stations, or a depot that sends trucks out. You'd need a place to provide parts and service for tractors and vehicles. Maybe a veterinarian's office for livestock? And the people that work in those businesses would have families that might need schools with teachers and staff. All of those buildings would probably justify a hardware or home improvement store of some type. Restaurants? Police/fire/EMS? Medical offices and/or a hospital? All of a sudden, we're talking about a lot of people "supporting" agriculture, and it's really no different than the small towns that dot the landscape already. I'm just curious where you draw the line, because it seems a lot like trying to determine who is and isn't an "essential worker".

That's a fair point, and I think it's largely a case-by-case basis. There are certainly people who want to live out in the middle of nowhere, but there's also a lot of people who want to be able to commute to work without having to drive a car or people who want access to safe and reliable infrastructure.

Unless farms start to shrink over the next few decades (and I'd bet they aren't) and we see a notable increase in people who are interested in committing themselves to the farming lifestyle, many of those small towns just aren't needed like they would have been 30 or 40 years ago.

It's delusional to think that as a country we can continue to have what we have right now without some inflection point where the cost to service the vast expanse of tiny little communities becomes so great that the only way they can continue along is with massive state and federal grants.

I'm glad you aren't advocating for the punitive measures that others (the 2 previous comments) seem to focus on.

How is it punitive to recognize that communities with declining populations and which don't have anything more than a Dollar General or a farmer's market for purchasing food locally don't necessarily need to continue to receive state and federal funding forever?

[ChpBstrd]

All this talk about any exurban development anywhere needing to go away rather than continuing to suck resources is a politically impossible fantasy. The political counterpunch would be "they want to destroy your small towns and force everyone to live in high-rise projects" and the electoral college would do the rest. Plus, the people working in many of those small towns form the supply chain for the agriculture industry, so they literally can't go away.

I think the work-from-home revolution is just starting, and will change the architecture of both home and work for knowledge workers. Just as it does not make sense for an accountant to drive to an expensive office, park in an expensive parking lot or garage, and sit there typing stuff into a computer, it also does not make sense for this accountant to live in a congested, polluted, high-crime, or high-cost area so they can be close to this obsolete office building. Our proverbial work-from-home accountant is likely to find a small town where they can build (without zoning restrictions!) the home of their dreams for a fraction of the cost of renting a tiny apartment in the city.

Will our example knowledge worker drive more or less? In answering that question, keep in mind that online shopping and grocery delivery will soon negate the traditional requirement to drive from town to town for various procurements, like groceries or merchandise. Cultural trends around using social media or video calls are negating the behavior of driving to friends' houses. Where is there left to go?

In this version of the future - which I don't necessarily look forward to - people drive a lot less while cities decline, sprawl continues, and mass transit never takes off.

[Paper Chaser]

The point isn't and should never be to coerce people out of what they have right now, although I'm sure there are many who would like to take that approach. But the continued subsidization of people who live away from readily accessible urban areas is, frankly, unsustainable. Over the course of a few decades, the most ideal policy would see people who live rurally who also aren't involved in agriculture & its support able to maintain that lifestyle at a premium.

There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs)  shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.

How are you defining rural, and what constitutes "supporting" agriculture? You'd need fueling stations, or a depot that sends trucks out. You'd need a place to provide parts and service for tractors and vehicles. Maybe a veterinarian's office for livestock? And the people that work in those businesses would have families that might need schools with teachers and staff. All of those buildings would probably justify a hardware or home improvement store of some type. Restaurants? Police/fire/EMS? Medical offices and/or a hospital? All of a sudden, we're talking about a lot of people "supporting" agriculture, and it's really no different than the small towns that dot the landscape already. I'm just curious where you draw the line, because it seems a lot like trying to determine who is and isn't an "essential worker".

That's a fair point, and I think it's largely a case-by-case basis. There are certainly people who want to live out in the middle of nowhere, but there's also a lot of people who want to be able to commute to work without having to drive a car or people who want access to safe and reliable infrastructure.

Unless farms start to shrink over the next few decades (and I'd bet they aren't) and we see a notable increase in people who are interested in committing themselves to the farming lifestyle, many of those small towns just aren't needed like they would have been 30 or 40 years ago.

It's delusional to think that as a country we can continue to have what we have right now without some inflection point where the cost to service the vast expanse of tiny little communities becomes so great that the only way they can continue along is with massive state and federal grants.

I think you could argue that the smaller a town might be, the more likely it is for it's population to be involved in agriculture. If we want to feed all of these humans, that might be worth some subsidization considering everything else that's already subsidized.

[chemistk]

All this talk about any exurban development anywhere needing to go away rather than continuing to suck resources is a politically impossible fantasy. The political counterpunch would be "they want to destroy your small towns and force everyone to live in high-rise projects" and the electoral college would do the rest. Plus, the people working in many of those small towns form the supply chain for the agriculture industry, so they literally can't go away.

I think the work-from-home revolution is just starting, and will change the architecture of both home and work for knowledge workers. Just as it does not make sense for an accountant to drive to an expensive office, park in an expensive parking lot or garage, and sit there typing stuff into a computer, it also does not make sense for this accountant to live in a congested, polluted, high-crime, or high-cost area so they can be close to this obsolete office building. Our proverbial work-from-home accountant is likely to find a small town where they can build (without zoning restrictions!) the home of their dreams for a fraction of the cost of renting a tiny apartment in the city.

Will our example knowledge worker drive more or less? In answering that question, keep in mind that online shopping and grocery delivery will soon negate the traditional requirement to drive from town to town for various procurements, like groceries or merchandise. Cultural trends around using social media or video calls are negating the behavior of driving to friends' houses. Where is there left to go?

In this version of the future - which I don't necessarily look forward to - people drive a lot less while cities decline, sprawl continues, and mass transit never takes off.

And so it goes.

I sometimes think about the fact that there's a theory that life & especially intelligent life is a cosmically efficient form of entropy. So far, I don't really see a lot of reasons to think that's not true.

[habanero]

I think the work-from-home revolution is just starting, and will change the architecture of both home and work for knowledge workers. Just as it does not make sense for an accountant to drive to an expensive office, park in an expensive parking lot or garage, and sit there typing stuff into a computer, it also does not make sense for this accountant to live in a congested, polluted, high-crime, or high-cost area so they can be close to this obsolete office building. Our proverbial work-from-home accountant is likely to find a small town where they can build (without zoning restrictions!) the home of their dreams for a fraction of the cost of renting a tiny apartment in the city.

During covid our local (Oslo, Norway) local transport folks estimated that if every person working downtown on average WFHed 1 day per week, it would take out all the projected growth in public transport until 2040. Can't vouch for the accuracy of the prediction or the maths behind it but, if it is sustained, will obviously over time have significant impact on office space, urban planning and transportation needs.

The downside is, quite common all over the world, that public tansport use has dropped significantly and operators are struggling with revenues and will at some point have to cut services. Car commuting is generally higher than pre-pandemic afaik so new habits have formed.

People are generally pretty lazy.

[Log]

…it also does not make sense for this accountant to live in a congested, polluted, high-crime, or high-cost area so they can be close to this obsolete office building. Our proverbial work-from-home accountant is likely to find a small town where they can build (without zoning restrictions!) the home of their dreams for a fraction of the cost of renting a tiny apartment in the city…

I think the belief that “the home of your dreams” will solve all of life’s woes is a pernicious one, and could very well be one of the most destructive cultural norms of American life. We need a lot more people to seek out the communities of their dreams instead. And those happen in cities.

We have a giant country of people who are drowning in loneliness, and will consistently deprive themselves of opportunities to live in vibrant communities just so they can have bigger buffers of space between themselves and their neighbors.

[Jon Bon]

All this talk about any exurban development anywhere needing to go away rather than continuing to suck resources is a politically impossible fantasy. The political counterpunch would be "they want to destroy your small towns and force everyone to live in high-rise projects" and the electoral college would do the rest. Plus, the people working in many of those small towns form the supply chain for the agriculture industry, so they literally can't go away.

I think the work-from-home revolution is just starting, and will change the architecture of both home and work for knowledge workers. Just as it does not make sense for an accountant to drive to an expensive office, park in an expensive parking lot or garage, and sit there typing stuff into a computer, it also does not make sense for this accountant to live in a congested, polluted, high-crime, or high-cost area so they can be close to this obsolete office building. Our proverbial work-from-home accountant is likely to find a small town where they can build (without zoning restrictions!) the home of their dreams for a fraction of the cost of renting a tiny apartment in the city.

Will our example knowledge worker drive more or less? In answering that question, keep in mind that online shopping and grocery delivery will soon negate the traditional requirement to drive from town to town for various procurements, like groceries or merchandise. Cultural trends around using social media or video calls are negating the behavior of driving to friends' houses. Where is there left to go?

In this version of the future - which I don't necessarily look forward to - people drive a lot less while cities decline, sprawl continues, and mass transit never takes off.

I agree the WFH thing might be the only way out of this. Because yes we are all doing very high quality drugs if we think urban sprawl will stop. There is just too much incentive for it to keep going. Lots of people want that lifestyle.  Furthermore even if we do have big satellite offices in the suburbs, folks will still use that as an excuse to move even further out. Some guys just want to cosplay as a farmer you know?

If the price of energy stays high I think is the only way out of this. I would say we should artificially raise the price of it (taxes) but that is a non-starter for both political parties. It would require politicians to A. raise taxes, and B. Actually use it to fix roads and increase mass transit options and not piss away on pet projects.

Politicians suck....

[ChpBstrd]

…it also does not make sense for this accountant to live in a congested, polluted, high-crime, or high-cost area so they can be close to this obsolete office building. Our proverbial work-from-home accountant is likely to find a small town where they can build (without zoning restrictions!) the home of their dreams for a fraction of the cost of renting a tiny apartment in the city…

I think the belief that “the home of your dreams” will solve all of life’s woes is a pernicious one, and could very well be one of the most destructive cultural norms of American life. We need a lot more people to seek out the communities of their dreams instead. And those happen in cities.

We have a giant country of people who are drowning in loneliness, and will consistently deprive themselves of opportunities to live in vibrant communities just so they can have bigger buffers of space between themselves and their neighbors.

I agree 100% and will add that there is some correlation between the quality of local governance in a place and the price of real estate / strength of the local economy there.

However, I always catch myself when I start to think to myself about what other people ought to do. If people did what makes sense to me, they wouldn't have started living the way that doesn't make sense to me in the first place! Gex X and Millenials are at least as obsessed about the ownership of unaffordable single-family fake farms as their parents were. Likewise, there's no reason people will ever connect living on "ranchettes" and suffering from social isolation.

[Paper Chaser]

…it also does not make sense for this accountant to live in a congested, polluted, high-crime, or high-cost area so they can be close to this obsolete office building. Our proverbial work-from-home accountant is likely to find a small town where they can build (without zoning restrictions!) the home of their dreams for a fraction of the cost of renting a tiny apartment in the city…

I think the belief that “the home of your dreams” will solve all of life’s woes is a pernicious one, and could very well be one of the most destructive cultural norms of American life. We need a lot more people to seek out the communities of their dreams instead. And those happen in cities.

We have a giant country of people who are drowning in loneliness, and will consistently deprive themselves of opportunities to live in vibrant communities just so they can have bigger buffers of space between themselves and their neighbors.

Communities can happen just about anywhere if you want them to. I live about 3 miles outside of a small town on some acreage in a cluster of similar homes. It's quiet enough, but we walk our little neighborhood a few times per week and chat with neighbors on their porch swings or help each other with fixing the kids' bikes. And because we have the space, we often host out of town family, or cookouts with friends, or play dates with kids from school. I guess it could be isolating for a certain type of personality, but it's been a great little community for us and we're just a couple of miles outside of town for festivals, mom and pop businesses where we know the owners by name, unique restaurants, and lots of parks/trails/etc. I don't think anybody would say that we live in a city, but we're not suffering from a lack of community at all.

[Log]

…it also does not make sense for this accountant to live in a congested, polluted, high-crime, or high-cost area so they can be close to this obsolete office building. Our proverbial work-from-home accountant is likely to find a small town where they can build (without zoning restrictions!) the home of their dreams for a fraction of the cost of renting a tiny apartment in the city…

I think the belief that “the home of your dreams” will solve all of life’s woes is a pernicious one, and could very well be one of the most destructive cultural norms of American life. We need a lot more people to seek out the communities of their dreams instead. And those happen in cities.

We have a giant country of people who are drowning in loneliness, and will consistently deprive themselves of opportunities to live in vibrant communities just so they can have bigger buffers of space between themselves and their neighbors.

Communities can happen just about anywhere if you want them to. I live about 3 miles outside of a small town on some acreage in a cluster of similar homes. It's quiet enough, but we walk our little neighborhood a few times per week and chat with neighbors on their porch swings or help each other with fixing the kids' bikes. And because we have the space, we often host out of town family, or cookouts with friends, or play dates with kids from school. I guess it could be isolating for a certain type of personality, but it's been a great little community for us and we're just a couple of miles outside of town for festivals, mom and pop businesses where we know the owners by name, unique restaurants, and lots of parks/trails/etc. I don't think anybody would say that we live in a city, but we're not suffering from a lack of community at all.

And a lot of people hope their suburban life will be like yours, but they live in a place surrounded by people they don't really want to engage with. Because they chose their location based on how much house they could get for their money, rather than being near their kind of people. Some people can find/make community anywhere. A lot of others are sacrificing community because they aren't critically examining whether they're living in the right place.

It's certainly possible to be socially isolated in the city as well, I'm not saying this is the silver bullet that entirely solves this giant societal issue. But I certainly think that WFH and more suburban sprawl for everyone will make the problem worse, not better. WFH creates even more of a need for people to live in walkable communities, because work is no longer a social outlet. I think WFH has great potential for positive societal changes, but not if it only leads to further atomization and more reclusive behavior.

[PDXTabs]

I get a lot of what you and PDXtabs are referring to, but both of your views are clouded by where you've lived and currently live. You moved from CA to a WA college town. He lives in Portland. I've lived in / near all 3 of those areas and they're certainly feasible to have transit function well for tons of people. I will say the MAX in Portland was often too full though and therefore was unreliable for me to make it to work on time.

Of course my opinions are influenced by where I grew up and where I have traveled to. I used to live in Hong Kong (when I was very young). Then I lived in the middle of the forest. Then I lived in the suburbs and I thought that I was living the American Dream. Then I moved into an urban environment for university and realized how awesome it was, but also what a horrible tax on the poor expecting them to drive is.

What I'm unsure of is whether either of you have spent any time living anywhere outside those self contained (B-ham), or larger meccas and have ever tried to fathom the sheer amount of miles and insane costs of trying to service areas / states that aren't populated like the I5 corridor.  I now live in Missouri, a state with 6 million people, 70,000 square miles and likely only transit in the 4 largest cities. About a 3rd of the state's people have any access to local transit. How do you plan on imposing your ideas in an area like here, when much of the country is like this? How can you propose raising costs and "making it hard" without a viable alternative to add value to their lives?

I'm not saying that we should force people to do anything. I'm saying that I don't want to subsidize cars with taxpayer money or force them on people with bad zoning. You want to live in the middle of the forest, go for it. Don't expect me to pay for it, stop subsidizing cars, and tax their externalities.

Along those lines I care about poor people in other countries too. If making car travel too expensive for poor people in the USA saves the lives of poor people in India, Pakistan, and Madagascar then sign me up.

CBS: Severe heat wave kills dozens in India and Pakistan in a "snapshot" of what's to come from climate change, expert says
Atlantic: The World Has No Choice but to Care About India’s Heat Wave
UN: Madagascar: Severe drought could spur world’s first climate change famine

[Shane]

Much of the road maintenance and oil subsidies are necessary due to truckers. Not sure that everyone will like the "per mile driven" tax once it hits every personal item purchased.
We can remove many of the personal vehicles on the road through better policy but ironically the most efficient drivers (not the F150s) are the ones most likely to alter their behaviors.

Why not directly subsidize truckers then?  Remove the road maintenance and oil subsidies, and let automobile transportation cost what it really should.

Seems like a better policy that would remove a lot of cars from the road.

Why would we subsidize truckers? Let shipping costs rise and let those costs be passed on to the consumer. This will modify both corporate and consumer behavior so that less shipping takes place. A long term win for everyone. 

Yeah, we would surely start to see rail freight transportation getting the attention it deserves.

It makes sense that Amazon and other similar companies mostly use trucks to ship their packages, as it's an easy way for them to externalize many of their costs of doing business. Amazon doesn't have to worry about building and maintaining roads, bridges, etc., because local municipalities, states and the US federal government take care of that for them - for free. If Amazon, etal., were ever required to pay the full, true cost of driving huge 18 wheelers gazillions of miles/year on our country's roads, they would switch to rail in a heartbeat. Trucks with rubber tires use about 3X more energy than a train to move the same amount of freight. Alan Fisher has a good video on it, comparing the efficiency of trucks vs. trains to haul freight.

[PDXTabs]

Yeah, we would surely start to see rail freight transportation getting the attention it deserves.

I would add passenger rail to that list.

But freight rail does get attention, when fuel prices are high. There is a rail car manufacturing facility in Portland. They are always hiring when fuel prices are up and laying people off when they fall again.

[Shane]

Yeah, we would surely start to see rail freight transportation getting the attention it deserves.

I would add passenger rail to that list.

But freight rail does get attention, when fuel prices are high. There is a rail car manufacturing facility in Portland. They are always hiring when fuel prices are up and laying people off when they fall again.

Since both passenger and freight rail benefit the public, as a whole, maybe the US federal government should consider nationalizing the country's rail infrastructure. The rail infrastructure would be owned by the people. Private railroads that wanted to continue operating could lease space on government-owned train tracks. So, basically the opposite of what we have now in the US.

Alan Fisher's video lays out the case for why US Railroads Should be Nationalized.

[PDXTabs]

Yeah, we would surely start to see rail freight transportation getting the attention it deserves.

I would add passenger rail to that list.

But freight rail does get attention, when fuel prices are high. There is a rail car manufacturing facility in Portland. They are always hiring when fuel prices are up and laying people off when they fall again.

Since both passenger and freight rail benefit the public, as a whole, maybe the US federal government should consider nationalizing the country's rail infrastructure. The rail infrastructure would be owned by the people. Private railroads that wanted to continue operating could lease space on government-owned train tracks. So, basically the opposite of what we have now in the US.

Alan Fisher's video lays out the case for why US Railroads Should be Nationalized.

I'm not sure that we need to, if we stop subsidizing their competition. Do you trust the current congress not to ruin it? Of course, if we nationalize them we could adopt the British pass-time of nationalizing, then privatizing, then re-nationalizing rail.

[Shane]

Yeah, we would surely start to see rail freight transportation getting the attention it deserves.

I would add passenger rail to that list.

But freight rail does get attention, when fuel prices are high. There is a rail car manufacturing facility in Portland. They are always hiring when fuel prices are up and laying people off when they fall again.

Since both passenger and freight rail benefit the public, as a whole, maybe the US federal government should consider nationalizing the country's rail infrastructure. The rail infrastructure would be owned by the people. Private railroads that wanted to continue operating could lease space on government-owned train tracks. So, basically the opposite of what we have now in the US.

Alan Fisher's video lays out the case for why US Railroads Should be Nationalized.

I'm not sure that we need to, if we stop subsidizing their competition. Do you trust the current congress not to ruin it? Of course, if we nationalize them we could adopt the British pass-time of nationalizing, then privatizing, then re-nationalizing rail.

For a hundred years governments in the US have been heavily subsidizing car/truck infrastructure. Just thinking it might be nice to shift some of that money over to rail. Agree, though, that governments in the US don't have a strong track record of not ruining stuff...

[PDXTabs]

For a hundred years governments in the US have been heavily subsidizing car/truck infrastructure. Just thinking it might be nice to shift some of that money over to rail. Agree, though, that governments in the US don't have a strong track record of not ruining stuff...

I don't disagree. But pre-WW2 a bunch of local passenger rail/streetcars were run as PUCs. You could do that again and give them some subsidies without having the US government manage them.

[ChpBstrd]

For a hundred years governments in the US have been heavily subsidizing car/truck infrastructure. Just thinking it might be nice to shift some of that money over to rail. Agree, though, that governments in the US don't have a strong track record of not ruining stuff...

I don't disagree. But pre-WW2 a bunch of local passenger rail/streetcars were run as PUCs. You could do that again and give them some subsidies without having the US government manage them.

If anything, we are forbidding rail construction. A new subway line that would cleanly serve many thousands of people in New York City was held up for years and faced billions in cost overruns due to environmental impact studies, and this is just one example.
 
https://secondavenuesagas.com/2014/01/03/on-the-environmental-review-problem/

First, ANY subway line has to be cleaner than car travel unless it's pulled by a radioactive steam engine burning plastic. Second, these are projects are occurring within one of the most already developed and polluted places on the planet, not in the middle of a pristine redwood forest. Why can't we carve out an exemption to environmental impact rules for rail lines that will, no matter what, be improvements over the status quo?

If we can't do that for subways, don't expect the US to start building new freight rail lines, or doubling up on existing routes so that trains can pass each other.

You can drive 100,000 giant trucks from coast-to-coast without notifying anyone, but to install a single trolley takes years of review and the creation of thousands of pages of documents no one will ever read.

[Shane]

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is literally demanding that Brightline compensate it for lost highway-toll revenue. Almost seems like an Onion article but, unfortunately, it's real.

FDOT Demands Compensation From Brightline For Lost Tolls If Wants to Expand Train Service To Tampa

[PDXTabs]

For a hundred years governments in the US have been heavily subsidizing car/truck infrastructure. Just thinking it might be nice to shift some of that money over to rail. Agree, though, that governments in the US don't have a strong track record of not ruining stuff...

I don't disagree. But pre-WW2 a bunch of local passenger rail/streetcars were run as PUCs. You could do that again and give them some subsidies without having the US government manage them.

If anything, we are forbidding rail construction. A new subway line that would cleanly serve many thousands of people in New York City was held up for years and faced billions in cost overruns due to environmental impact studies, and this is just one example.
 
https://secondavenuesagas.com/2014/01/03/on-the-environmental-review-problem/

First, ANY subway line has to be cleaner than car travel unless it's pulled by a radioactive steam engine burning plastic. Second, these are projects are occurring within one of the most already developed and polluted places on the planet, not in the middle of a pristine redwood forest. Why can't we carve out an exemption to environmental impact rules for rail lines that will, no matter what, be improvements over the status quo?

If we can't do that for subways, don't expect the US to start building new freight rail lines, or doubling up on existing routes so that trains can pass each other.

You can drive 100,000 giant trucks from coast-to-coast without notifying anyone, but to install a single trolley takes years of review and the creation of thousands of pages of documents no one will ever read.

Yea, there is this weird irony that if you let the Libertarian party run the country for 8 years transit might end up greener. It was entirely normal for profitable companies to fund streetcar systems pre-WW2.

[Jon Bon]

Yeah, we would surely start to see rail freight transportation getting the attention it deserves.

I would add passenger rail to that list.

But freight rail does get attention, when fuel prices are high. There is a rail car manufacturing facility in Portland. They are always hiring when fuel prices are up and laying people off when they fall again.

Since both passenger and freight rail benefit the public, as a whole, maybe the US federal government should consider nationalizing the country's rail infrastructure. The rail infrastructure would be owned by the people. Private railroads that wanted to continue operating could lease space on government-owned train tracks. So, basically the opposite of what we have now in the US.

Alan Fisher's video lays out the case for why US Railroads Should be Nationalized.

I'm not sure that we need to, if we stop subsidizing their competition. Do you trust the current congress not to ruin it? Of course, if we nationalize them we could adopt the British pass-time of nationalizing, then privatizing, then re-nationalizing rail.

For a hundred years governments in the US have been heavily subsidizing car/truck infrastructure. Just thinking it might be nice to shift some of that money over to rail. Agree, though, that governments in the US don't have a strong track record of not ruining stuff...

I mean we also have a long history of funding railroads as well. Not to mention that anyone is allowed to use a highway, and I have never taken a private vehicle on a railroad.

Not saying you are wrong, but there are two sides of course.

[SpaceCow]

Yeah, the US subsidized crony railroad robber barons that train wrecked their companies, bailed them out, then progressively de-regulated the industry to make it more profitable. Railroads are certainly not the heroes of this story either.

[Abe]

Saw a segment on LA news about a gas station charging $8 per gallon. The only guy who stopped was someone who let their BMW run out of gas. Interestingly, he bought $20 of gas instead of say $4 to get to another gas station that’s cheaper (most around $4-$5 currently).

I’m not sure what my point is other than people don’t think hard about gas cost, I guess. Do people use Gasbuddy still?

I also remember an intersection that had 3 gas stations of various companies. One was always 5c cheaper than the others. Interestingly the other two still got business, even though there was no line at the cheaper one.

[FIPurpose]

Saw a segment on LA news about a gas station charging $8 per gallon. The only guy who stopped was someone who let their BMW run out of gas. Interestingly, he bought $20 of gas instead of say $4 to get to another gas station that’s cheaper (most around $4-$5 currently).

I’m not sure what my point is other than people don’t think hard about gas cost, I guess. Do people use Gasbuddy still?

I also remember an intersection that had 3 gas stations of various companies. One was always 5c cheaper than the others. Interestingly the other two still got business, even though there was no line at the cheaper one.

Well the difference of .05 over 15 gallons is a total of .75. Picking one over the other doesn't really matter all that much. Still don't understand people sitting in a 7 car long line at Costco to save .50 a gallon at best. Spending 45 minutes to get gas just to save $7? Not worth it.

[coppertop]

At my granddaughter's elementary school, parents line up in their SUV's 45 minutes to an hour outside the school with the motor running the entire time waiting to pick up children from the school.  Busses run half empty because kids can't/won't/don't want to ride the bus.  Most of the children attending the school live within walking distance, and those who ride the busses don't live that far away that they would be on the bus for a long period of time.  Such a waste of resources.  Our family walks her to and from school...extra exercise plus not using gasoline.  Where we used to live, school districts closed down all of the neighborhood schools and built mega schools on out-of-town campuses, requiring everyone to take a bus or be driven.  Also a waste of resources.

[simonsez]

Saw a segment on LA news about a gas station charging $8 per gallon. The only guy who stopped was someone who let their BMW run out of gas. Interestingly, he bought $20 of gas instead of say $4 to get to another gas station that’s cheaper (most around $4-$5 currently).

I’m not sure what my point is other than people don’t think hard about gas cost, I guess. Do people use Gasbuddy still?

I also remember an intersection that had 3 gas stations of various companies. One was always 5c cheaper than the others. Interestingly the other two still got business, even though there was no line at the cheaper one.

Well the difference of .05 over 15 gallons is a total of .75. Picking one over the other doesn't really matter all that much. Still don't understand people sitting in a 7 car long line at Costco to save .50 a gallon at best. Spending 45 minutes to get gas just to save $7? Not worth it.

Maybe the wait times drastically vary across the country because it has never taken me 45 minutes ever or anywhere close to that and I fill it up at Costco ~once a month so the savings in a year are noticeable.  And it's Top Tier gasoline if you're into that (unlike Sam's).  I'd say there is an average wait of 2-3 cars ahead of me when I pull in and the Costco location I go to has three pumps per lane so it's less than 5 minute wait on average (<= 1 full cycle of cars through the lane's pumps, sometimes I get there and have zero wait).  Do the Costcos in Washington only have 1 pump per lane?  Do they pump slowly?  45 minutes to go through 7 cars?!  Might as well turn the vehicle off and enjoy your churro or cheese slice!

If it did take longer, I am not sure it would change much about my household's behavior.  Usually have plenty of time and if it was that bad like 45 min bad, I'd drop off my wife (or vice versa) and start walking the aisles inside while the other person acquired fuel.  Trips to Costco usually take 45 min anyway so might as well save the $7 and purchase fuel there.  I guess the decision calculus could change if I was in a hurry and was solo.  But honestly if I'm in a hurry, I'm probably not making the choice to go to Costco that day anyway.  YMMV

[FIPurpose]

Saw a segment on LA news about a gas station charging $8 per gallon. The only guy who stopped was someone who let their BMW run out of gas. Interestingly, he bought $20 of gas instead of say $4 to get to another gas station that’s cheaper (most around $4-$5 currently).

I’m not sure what my point is other than people don’t think hard about gas cost, I guess. Do people use Gasbuddy still?

I also remember an intersection that had 3 gas stations of various companies. One was always 5c cheaper than the others. Interestingly the other two still got business, even though there was no line at the cheaper one.

Well the difference of .05 over 15 gallons is a total of .75. Picking one over the other doesn't really matter all that much. Still don't understand people sitting in a 7 car long line at Costco to save .50 a gallon at best. Spending 45 minutes to get gas just to save $7? Not worth it.

Maybe the wait times drastically vary across the country because it has never taken me 45 minutes ever or anywhere close to that and I fill it up at Costco ~once a month so the savings in a year are noticeable.  And it's Top Tier gasoline if you're into that (unlike Sam's).  I'd say there is an average wait of 2-3 cars ahead of me when I pull in and the Costco location I go to has three pumps per lane so it's less than 5 minute wait on average (<= 1 full cycle of cars through the lane's pumps, sometimes I get there and have zero wait).  Do the Costcos in Washington only have 1 pump per lane?  Do they pump slowly?  45 minutes to go through 7 cars?!  Might as well turn the vehicle off and enjoy your churro or cheese slice!

If it did take longer, I am not sure it would change much about my household's behavior.  Usually have plenty of time and if it was that bad like 45 min bad, I'd drop off my wife (or vice versa) and start walking the aisles inside while the other person acquired fuel.  Trips to Costco usually take 45 min anyway so might as well save the $7 and purchase fuel there.  I guess the decision calculus could change if I was in a hurry and was solo.  But honestly if I'm in a hurry, I'm probably not making the choice to go to Costco that day anyway.  YMMV

My local Costco has 2 pumps in each line. I went a couple days ago at rush hour (4-5pm ish) and the line for gas was stretched out past the regular waiting area that fits about 5 cars each. So yeah, I'd say the waiting period was about 7 cars.

45 minutes might be a bit of an exaggeration, but nah 20-30 minutes is still not worth it. And my tank is only 12-13 gallons, so I'd at best save ~$5 - turning on and off my car 5 times to inch in line. Costco gas is usually only ~.20 cheaper.

Just checked gas buddy: price today at costco is 4.72 vs my closest gas station of 4.99.

.27 * 12 gallons = $3.24.

Empty line at Costco? Sure, I'll grab it if convenient. Waiting in line for 20 minutes? I've got better things to do.

It's doubly weird for people that drive to Costco just to fill up. Driving 10 miles to fill up, so then you've blown through at least a third of a gallon, and spent 20-30 minutes going. Now you're saving more like a $1.

Saving $3 a month on gas over the course of a year comes to $30-40. Not saying it's nothing. Just not worth the bother if the line is backed up or considering the 3 extra hours of sitting in line to get it.

[Cranky]

Saw a segment on LA news about a gas station charging $8 per gallon. The only guy who stopped was someone who let their BMW run out of gas. Interestingly, he bought $20 of gas instead of say $4 to get to another gas station that’s cheaper (most around $4-$5 currently).

I’m not sure what my point is other than people don’t think hard about gas cost, I guess. Do people use Gasbuddy still?

I also remember an intersection that had 3 gas stations of various companies. One was always 5c cheaper than the others. Interestingly the other two still got business, even though there was no line at the cheaper one.

Well the difference of .05 over 15 gallons is a total of .75. Picking one over the other doesn't really matter all that much. Still don't understand people sitting in a 7 car long line at Costco to save .50 a gallon at best. Spending 45 minutes to get gas just to save $7? Not worth it.

Maybe the wait times drastically vary across the country because it has never taken me 45 minutes ever or anywhere close to that and I fill it up at Costco ~once a month so the savings in a year are noticeable.  And it's Top Tier gasoline if you're into that (unlike Sam's).  I'd say there is an average wait of 2-3 cars ahead of me when I pull in and the Costco location I go to has three pumps per lane so it's less than 5 minute wait on average (<= 1 full cycle of cars through the lane's pumps, sometimes I get there and have zero wait).  Do the Costcos in Washington only have 1 pump per lane?  Do they pump slowly?  45 minutes to go through 7 cars?!  Might as well turn the vehicle off and enjoy your churro or cheese slice!

If it did take longer, I am not sure it would change much about my household's behavior.  Usually have plenty of time and if it was that bad like 45 min bad, I'd drop off my wife (or vice versa) and start walking the aisles inside while the other person acquired fuel.  Trips to Costco usually take 45 min anyway so might as well save the $7 and purchase fuel there.  I guess the decision calculus could change if I was in a hurry and was solo.  But honestly if I'm in a hurry, I'm probably not making the choice to go to Costco that day anyway.  YMMV

The lines at the Costco gas station are often really long here, and it's pretty big. I think there are 4 sets of pumps?  Weirdly, it doesn't seem much cheaper than the other gas stations, unlike Sam's Club in Ohio, where it was always .10 - .15 cheaper.

[wageslave23]

Saw a segment on LA news about a gas station charging $8 per gallon. The only guy who stopped was someone who let their BMW run out of gas. Interestingly, he bought $20 of gas instead of say $4 to get to another gas station that’s cheaper (most around $4-$5 currently).

I’m not sure what my point is other than people don’t think hard about gas cost, I guess. Do people use Gasbuddy still?

I also remember an intersection that had 3 gas stations of various companies. One was always 5c cheaper than the others. Interestingly the other two still got business, even though there was no line at the cheaper one.

Well the difference of .05 over 15 gallons is a total of .75. Picking one over the other doesn't really matter all that much. Still don't understand people sitting in a 7 car long line at Costco to save .50 a gallon at best. Spending 45 minutes to get gas just to save $7? Not worth it.

Maybe the wait times drastically vary across the country because it has never taken me 45 minutes ever or anywhere close to that and I fill it up at Costco ~once a month so the savings in a year are noticeable.  And it's Top Tier gasoline if you're into that (unlike Sam's).  I'd say there is an average wait of 2-3 cars ahead of me when I pull in and the Costco location I go to has three pumps per lane so it's less than 5 minute wait on average (<= 1 full cycle of cars through the lane's pumps, sometimes I get there and have zero wait).  Do the Costcos in Washington only have 1 pump per lane?  Do they pump slowly?  45 minutes to go through 7 cars?!  Might as well turn the vehicle off and enjoy your churro or cheese slice!

If it did take longer, I am not sure it would change much about my household's behavior.  Usually have plenty of time and if it was that bad like 45 min bad, I'd drop off my wife (or vice versa) and start walking the aisles inside while the other person acquired fuel.  Trips to Costco usually take 45 min anyway so might as well save the $7 and purchase fuel there.  I guess the decision calculus could change if I was in a hurry and was solo.  But honestly if I'm in a hurry, I'm probably not making the choice to go to Costco that day anyway.  YMMV

My local Costco has 2 pumps in each line. I went a couple days ago at rush hour (4-5pm ish) and the line for gas was stretched out past the regular waiting area that fits about 5 cars each. So yeah, I'd say the waiting period was about 7 cars.

45 minutes might be a bit of an exaggeration, but nah 20-30 minutes is still not worth it. And my tank is only 12-13 gallons, so I'd at best save ~$5 - turning on and off my car 5 times to inch in line. Costco gas is usually only ~.20 cheaper.

Just checked gas buddy: price today at costco is 4.72 vs my closest gas station of 4.99.

.27 * 12 gallons = $3.24.

Empty line at Costco? Sure, I'll grab it if convenient. Waiting in line for 20 minutes? I've got better things to do.

It's doubly weird for people that drive to Costco just to fill up. Driving 10 miles to fill up, so then you've blown through at least a third of a gallon, and spent 20-30 minutes going. Now you're saving more like a $1.

Saving $3 a month on gas over the course of a year comes to $30-40. Not saying it's nothing. Just not worth the bother if the line is backed up or considering the 3 extra hours of sitting in line to get it.

Yes, same with only filling up a few gallons at an expensive gas station in order to stop a second time to fill up at a less expensive gas station.  I need to be saving more than $5 to justify an unneeded extra gas station stop.

[PDXTabs]

Yes, same with only filling up a few gallons at an expensive gas station in order to stop a second time to fill up at a less expensive gas station.  I need to be saving more than $5 to justify an unneeded extra gas station stop.

I usually fill up my 14 gal tank when it is half empty. IDK what you would have to pay me to put extra wear and tear on my car and take my time to make an extra stop or drive out of the way for different gas. But it is a lot, $20 probably. So something like a $3/gal difference because I value my time and know that driving isn't free.

[wageslave23]

Yes, same with only filling up a few gallons at an expensive gas station in order to stop a second time to fill up at a less expensive gas station.  I need to be saving more than $5 to justify an unneeded extra gas station stop.

I usually fill up my 14 gal tank when it is half empty. IDK what you would have to pay me to put extra wear and tear on my car and take my time to make an extra stop or drive out of the way for different gas. But it is a lot, $20 probably. So something like a $3/gal difference because I value my time and know that driving isn't free.

I think mine would be $8.  Assuming it takes 10 minutes for an extra fillup and an extra $1 in gas used, that's the equivalent of $42/hr for my time (tax free). 

[PDXTabs]

Yes, same with only filling up a few gallons at an expensive gas station in order to stop a second time to fill up at a less expensive gas station.  I need to be saving more than $5 to justify an unneeded extra gas station stop.

I usually fill up my 14 gal tank when it is half empty. IDK what you would have to pay me to put extra wear and tear on my car and take my time to make an extra stop or drive out of the way for different gas. But it is a lot, $20 probably. So something like a $3/gal difference because I value my time and know that driving isn't free.

I think mine would be $8.  Assuming it takes 10 minutes for an extra fillup and an extra $1 in gas used, that's the equivalent of $42/hr for my time (tax free).

That's a fair analysis. I might be more fixated on the wear and tear, depreciation, and extra parking lot conflict (opportunity for some idiot to back into my car) than you are.

[GuitarStv]

Yes, same with only filling up a few gallons at an expensive gas station in order to stop a second time to fill up at a less expensive gas station.  I need to be saving more than $5 to justify an unneeded extra gas station stop.

I usually fill up my 14 gal tank when it is half empty. IDK what you would have to pay me to put extra wear and tear on my car and take my time to make an extra stop or drive out of the way for different gas. But it is a lot, $20 probably. So something like a $3/gal difference because I value my time and know that driving isn't free.

I think mine would be $8.  Assuming it takes 10 minutes for an extra fillup and an extra $1 in gas used, that's the equivalent of $42/hr for my time (tax free).

That's a fair analysis. I might be more fixated on the wear and tear, depreciation, and extra parking lot conflict (opportunity for some idiot to back into my car) than you are.

Actually had a person back into my car a couple years back.  There was a scratch and some minor damage, but I didn't feel it was worth my time/effort to fight them over it.  I drive a 2005 Corolla . . . soo . . . depreciation and wear/tear aren't terribly high on my list of concerns.

[Abe]

Well now I know!

Incidentally the gas station dropped their price to the new normal after news coverage of their price hike.

[ChickenStash]

Saw a segment on LA news about a gas station charging $8 per gallon. The only guy who stopped was someone who let their BMW run out of gas. Interestingly, he bought $20 of gas instead of say $4 to get to another gas station that’s cheaper (most around $4-$5 currently).

I’m not sure what my point is other than people don’t think hard about gas cost, I guess. Do people use Gasbuddy still?

I also remember an intersection that had 3 gas stations of various companies. One was always 5c cheaper than the others. Interestingly the other two still got business, even though there was no line at the cheaper one.

Well the difference of .05 over 15 gallons is a total of .75. Picking one over the other doesn't really matter all that much. Still don't understand people sitting in a 7 car long line at Costco to save .50 a gallon at best. Spending 45 minutes to get gas just to save $7? Not worth it.

Maybe the wait times drastically vary across the country because it has never taken me 45 minutes ever or anywhere close to that and I fill it up at Costco ~once a month so the savings in a year are noticeable.  And it's Top Tier gasoline if you're into that (unlike Sam's).  I'd say there is an average wait of 2-3 cars ahead of me when I pull in and the Costco location I go to has three pumps per lane so it's less than 5 minute wait on average (<= 1 full cycle of cars through the lane's pumps, sometimes I get there and have zero wait).  Do the Costcos in Washington only have 1 pump per lane?  Do they pump slowly?  45 minutes to go through 7 cars?!  Might as well turn the vehicle off and enjoy your churro or cheese slice!

If it did take longer, I am not sure it would change much about my household's behavior.  Usually have plenty of time and if it was that bad like 45 min bad, I'd drop off my wife (or vice versa) and start walking the aisles inside while the other person acquired fuel.  Trips to Costco usually take 45 min anyway so might as well save the $7 and purchase fuel there.  I guess the decision calculus could change if I was in a hurry and was solo.  But honestly if I'm in a hurry, I'm probably not making the choice to go to Costco that day anyway.  YMMV

The lines at the Costco gas station are often really long here, and it's pretty big. I think there are 4 sets of pumps?  Weirdly, it doesn't seem much cheaper than the other gas stations, unlike Sam's Club in Ohio, where it was always .10 - .15 cheaper.

That might depend on state laws. WI, for example, has minimum markup laws that prevent a particular station from having prices significantly below the rest in the nearby market. I'm not sure what other states have that would be similar. I'm in WI and the Costcos around here are usually only 0.05 lower at best for regular. They can be 0.20 or more lower for premium so I'm not sure exactly how that law calculates things they seem to get away with it.

[YttriumNitrate]

Saw a segment on LA news about a gas station charging $8 per gallon. The only guy who stopped was someone who let their BMW run out of gas. Interestingly, he bought $20 of gas instead of say $4 to get to another gas station that’s cheaper (most around $4-$5 currently).

According to AAA, gas is averaging $6.28 a gallon in LA county. https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=CA

[ChpBstrd]

All this worry about the price of gasoline and whether you can get it a nickle cheaper on the other side of town. Meanwhile, the average person could cut their gasoline bill in half just by selecting a different vehicle to drive, and cut it in half again by reducing their unnecessary driving.

[FIPurpose]

^ My gas bill last year was $650. Last time I was full-time commuting to a job was 2016 and we spent ~1400.

I'll probably be doing a cross-country move this year that'll probably push us back up to the 1200-1400 range, but still not anywhere near our biggest budget item.

A 50% increase in gas is basically the same as a 2-3% rent increase on the budget. And with rents going up multiples of that, rent prices are several times worse than gas.