Shift in Transporation Trends

[Just the facts]

It is no secret that I think we are on the cusp of monumental shifts if everything for transit systems to the built environment to national boarders to currency systems. I came across this story today and though others would find it interesting.

More bikes sold than cars in Italy for first time since WW2 - Telegraph

More bikes sold than cars in Italy for first time since WW2

For the first time since the end of the Second World War the number of bicycles sold in Italy has overtaken the number of cars.

In a radical departure for the car-mad country, home to legendary marques such as Fiat, Ferrari and Lamborghini, 1,750,000 bikes were bought in 2011 compared to 1,748,000 motor vehicles.

As austerity cuts deepen and petrol prices hit a new high, the purchase of new cars has dropped to levels not seen since the 1970s.

Families are buying bikes, ditching their second cars and signing up to car pool schemes – a major shift for a nation which has one of the highest car ownership rates in the world, with around 60 cars for every 100 people.

Car ownership became a symbol of the Italian economic miracle in the 1960s and has steadily grown since, but as unemployment rises and living costs soar, it has become an unaffordable luxury for many Italian families.

...

Out of a population of 60 million, 6.5 million Italians use a bike to get to work or school, while 10.5 million use them occasionally, mostly at weekends.

Italians have a new-found appreciation of the convenience of bikes and the fact that they do not pollute the environment.

“People who have only ever driven cars are changing their thinking,” Antonio Della Venezia, the president of the Italian Federation of Bike Lovers, told La Repubblica newspaper.

“I don’t think Italy will go back to the levels of cars sales that we saw before 2008.”

[Plutonic Panda]

Is that necessarily a good thing? I mean wouldn't that kind of signify a country being poor if people can't afford cars or gas? Now, I'm not saying if you ride a bike you're poor. I, myself just forked out quite a bit of money for a new road bike and I ride a lot around Edmond. If this is just one country I don't really understand how this would be of any significance. I'm not trying to argue or say you're just wrong, but I just don't see that this means anything and how this is good. I also recall reading somewhere that the overall ownership of cars is increasing more than ever. I will try and find that article in a bit when I get time.

[Just the facts]

No doubt global car ownership is increasing. China alone can drive the world market up (at least until they learn it is a dead end road). If you get a chance watch the documentary Urbanized and pay close attention to the part on Bogota, Colombia and Amsterdam. Truth be told, no country in the world can afford the automobile. We have a cheap oil on a global scale because of the US military. What do you think will happen to our oil prices over time if the US military is scaled back?

[Plutonic Panda]

No doubt global car ownership is increasing. China alone can drive the world market up (at least until they learn it is a dead end road). If you get a chance watch the documentary Urbanized and pay close attention to the part on Bogota, Colombia and Amsterdam. Truth be told, no country in the world can afford the automobile. We have a cheap oil on a global scale because of the US military. What do you think will happen to our oil prices over time if the US military is scaled back?

Someone else told me me I should watch that documentary as well. I will search it on Netflix and if is not on there I will go buy it on Cinema now. I understand your point though. I think with alternative fuels, higher gas tax, and creating some sort of system as to where you would pay much higher taxes if you chose to live outside of the city core, you could successfully fund a high quality expansive highway highway network. I am a suburb guy. However I would love to see OKC really start to become an urban city, but with nice and beautiful suburbs. I would be willing to pay higher taxes for living outside of the core because I understand it isn't fair to the people that will hardly use the highways and pay for all the sprawl. I also truly believe in creating a task force that would monitor and tackle sprawl before it happens. But my point is, I think countries can afford the automobile if it is done right.

[Just the facts]

It is on NetFlix instant view and by DVD.

[Plutonic Panda]

You know another thing so you know a little more about me. I am in favor of some of your views(the posts I have seen you make over the last 6 months or so). I think all highway spending should be completely frozen and they need to build an expansive light rail service across the metro and then wait 6 months and do a study of what highways and roads need to be widened, removed, ect. because of the people that will choose the light rail over driving. Which I'm sure the numbers will surprise people. Just saying, to keep my views in perspective.

[vaflyer]

I think with alternative fuels, higher gas tax, and creating some sort of system as to where you would pay much higher taxes if you chose to live outside of the city core,

Why should a pay more taxes for living outside the urban core? I do not live there, do not work there, or hardly ever go there!

[ljbab728]

Why should a pay more taxes for living outside the urban core? I do not live there, do not work there, or hardly ever go there!

The thinking is that those living outside of the urban core should pay more in taxes because of the extra money the city has to spend to extend services outside of the urban core. When you move to the urban core most of the infrastructure is already there and little extra expense to the city is involved.

[Plutonic Panda]

Why should a pay more taxes for living outside the urban core? I do not live there, do not work there, or hardly ever go there!

Well then you wouldn't have to pay higher tax. I would because I live in Edmond. I think that some kind of system needs to be created to where you could pay for something called a sprawl tax(included on property taxes) and I would support higher gas tax. Since you live in the core and don't drive as often I am sure this shouldn't be a problem, yes?

[vaflyer]

Well then you wouldn't have to pay higher tax. I would because I live in Edmond. I think that some kind of system needs to be created to where you could pay for something called a sprawl tax(included on property taxes) and I would support higher gas tax. Since you live in the core and don't drive as often I am sure this shouldn't be a problem, yes?

As I stated earlier, I live OUTSIDE the urban core. I do not work there and hardly ever go there. I should not have to subsidize services that I do not use.

The economic term for taxes used to cover the costs of urban sprawl are called "impact fees." They are paid only once at the time a house is built (in a new development) and are meant to cover the marginal costs of building roads, schools, water lines, etc. into undeveloped land. They are NOT meant to subsidize economic development in urban areas. I hear all the time that "development should pay its own way." Following that logic, redevelopment in the urban core should be paid for by individuals living there and businesses located there. That does not happen, because most structures in the urban core are older and valued lower (and generate less property taxes) than newer structures in the suburban areas. Thus, redevelopment of core areas requires subsidies from non-core areas. A good example is MAPS in OKC (a sales tax for the all of Oklahoma City which is used primarily for downtown development.)

[Rover]

I would love to see a map of actual property and other taxes paid in various areas of the metro, along with ongoing infrastructure maintenance, etc. expenses. One might be surprised at who pays for who here in OKC. Let's include sales tax collections.

[stlokc]

Not making a value judgment either way but lots of people pay taxes for things they don't personally use. My parents paid taxes to support public schools even though my brother and I never set foot in one all the way through our childhood, and they were (somewhat) happy to do so. We need highways but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a comprehensive conversation about how transportation dollars should be spent.

[ljbab728]

As I stated earlier, I live OUTSIDE the urban core. I do not work there and hardly ever go there. I should not have to subsidize services that I do not use.

The economic term for taxes used to cover the costs of urban sprawl are called "impact fees." They are paid only once at the time a house is built (in a new development) and are meant to cover the marginal costs of building roads, schools, water lines, etc. into undeveloped land. They are NOT meant to subsidize economic development in urban areas. I hear all the time that "development should pay its own way." Following that logic, redevelopment in the urban core should be paid for by individuals living there and businesses located there. That does not happen, because most structures in the urban core are older and valued lower (and generate less property taxes) than newer structures in the suburban areas. Thus, redevelopment of core areas requires subsidies from non-core areas. A good example is MAPS in OKC (a sales tax for the all of Oklahoma City which is used primarily for downtown development.)

As mentioned by others, everyone pays taxes to the benefit of things they don't use. That argument has no validity. And to classify expenses for roads, schools, water lines, etc. as marginal shows a substantial lack of understanding what is involved.

As an example, there is no direct correlation to money that the city spends to build roads in suburban areas and what you are charged for your house. The cost of your house absolutely reflects the cost of building roads and infrastructure in your subdivision but not what the city builds.

[vaflyer]

As mentioned by others, everyone pays taxes to the benefit of things they don't use. That argument has no validity. And to classify expenses for roads, schools, water lines, etc. as marginal shows a substantial lack of understanding what is involved.

As an example, there is no direct correlation to money that the city spends to build roads in suburban areas and what you are charged for your house. The cost of your house absolutely reflects the cost of building roads and infrastructure in your subdivision but not what the city builds.

"Marginal cost" is an economics term that describes the additional costs incurred from a specific action. In this case, what are the additional costs incurred by the city (roads, schools, water lines, etc.) due to one additional family moving into a new development on the edge of town. If my explanation still does not make sense, I would encourage you to get at any Principles of Economics textbook and look up the term "marginal cost."

[heyerdahl]

Vaflyer, impact fees are good at balancing the one-time costs of sprawl development, but we don't have impact fees in OKC. They tried to implement them but it didn't work politically. Besides, the one-time costs of sprawl development aren't the only concern- it's the ongoing maintenance that can't pay for itself (look at almost every neighborhood that was developed in the 50s-70s).

Honestly it's a lot easier to make the argument that people who are living in the urban core on crumbling streets and sidewalks with bursting water mains are "subsidizing" unneeded street widening, ADA crosswalks, and new water/sewer in the NW 150s.

[Plutonic Panda]

As I stated earlier, I live OUTSIDE the urban core. I do not work there and hardly ever go there. I should not have to subsidize services that I do not use.

The economic term for taxes used to cover the costs of urban sprawl are called "impact fees." They are paid only once at the time a house is built (in a new development) and are meant to cover the marginal costs of building roads, schools, water lines, etc. into undeveloped land. They are NOT meant to subsidize economic development in urban areas. I hear all the time that "development should pay its own way." Following that logic, redevelopment in the urban core should be paid for by individuals living there and businesses located there. That does not happen, because most structures in the urban core are older and valued lower (and generate less property taxes) than newer structures in the suburban areas. Thus, redevelopment of core areas requires subsidies from non-core areas. A good example is MAPS in OKC (a sales tax for the all of Oklahoma City which is used primarily for downtown development.)

T
he concept is that it cost more for the city to make sure people living way the hell outside of the core are able to get into the core rather than just providing for people that already live in the core. I know what you're saying. But, what you have done. The city goes around and asks people if they go to the core or not. Then if you get caught going to downtown Oklahoma City and they catch you, you get fined? It all comes down to where you live. If you live in Yukon, Edmond, MWC, Mustang, Moore, Norman, ect... I think people should have to pay a sprawl tax of some kind on their yearly property taxes and building outside the core. I also think again there should be a higher gas tax. Maybe tax higher in the suburbs.. I don't know exactly how that would work or be implemented but something needs to be done to address sprawl. No offense, but you are contributing to it, as am I. So I think we need to pay our fair share because it isn't fair to the people that live in say Deep Deuce having to pay for six lane(most likely going to have to be widened in the coming years) highway going out into the suburbs that THEY will probably never use. Keep in mind I live Edmond.

[Hawk405359]

Well then you wouldn't have to pay higher tax. I would because I live in Edmond. I think that some kind of system needs to be created to where you could pay for something called a sprawl tax(included on property taxes) and I would support higher gas tax. Since you live in the core and don't drive as often I am sure this shouldn't be a problem, yes?

Why would OKC have any influence on a different city's property taxes?

Gas taxes are a perfectly sufficient mechanism to account for the cost of roadways, and if we used property taxes to pay for the local needs of that area, it'd be much more suitable for paying for that area's needs, as opposed to trying to construct some sort of sprawl tax.

[vaflyer]

Why would OKC have any influence on a different city's property taxes?

Gas taxes are a perfectly sufficient mechanism to account for the cost of roadways, and if we used property taxes to pay for the local needs of that area, it'd be much more suitable for paying for that area's needs, as opposed to trying to construct some sort of sprawl tax.

I agree with this statement. Most costs of sprawl are localized to the specific city where it is occurring. Let's take Norman as an example.

The state, via gas taxes (mostly), pays for the construction and maintenance of state and federal highways in Norman and those leading to Norman. Currently, the state is funding the upgrading and widening of I-35 in Norman. Even if sprawl never occurred in Norman, I-35 needs many of the safety updates and bridge/pavement reconstruction that the state is doing so all of the expenses of the I-35 projects cannot be attributed to sprawl.

The other major costs of sprawl are paid for by people living in Norman (and those non-Norman residents shopping in Norman).

Some examples of recent Norman city "sprawl" expenses and their major source of funding.

1) Two new fire stations and their equipment - city sales tax
2) Widening of city streets (non-state/federal) - property taxes
3) New and renovated schools - property tax
4) New/bigger country jail - county sales tax
5) Additional police and fire personal - city sales tax

Notice that in each of these five examples, Norman residents or people who "elect" to shop in Norman are funding sprawl and not residents in other cities. The only example where sprawl costs are passed on to others outside Norman is via federal and state roads. The gas tax, however, functions as an indirect "user fee" on those using the roads. The more that you drive on the roads, the more gasoline you must purchase, so the more taxes that you will pay.

My conclusion from this exercise is that sprawl costs are mostly localized to the community that it occurring in and any type of "sprawl tax" that taxes residents in one city to pay for the expenses of another city is unnecessary.

One last thing to remember, as Oklahoma adds population, our new residents/neighbors must live somewhere so some sprawl is inevitable.

[ljbab728]

"Marginal cost" is an economics term that describes the additional costs incurred from a specific action. In this case, what are the additional costs incurred by the city (roads, schools, water lines, etc.) due to one additional family moving into a new development on the edge of town. If my explanation still does not make sense, I would encourage you to get at any Principles of Economics textbook and look up the term "marginal cost."

Whichever definition of marginal you are using doesn't improve your argument and no textbook is necessary to know that.

[Hawk405359]

As mentioned by others, everyone pays taxes to the benefit of things they don't use. That argument has no validity. And to classify expenses for roads, schools, water lines, etc. as marginal shows a substantial lack of understanding what is involved.

As an example, there is no direct correlation to money that the city spends to build roads in suburban areas and what you are charged for your house. The cost of your house absolutely reflects the cost of building roads and infrastructure in your subdivision but not what the city builds.

They pay for state run parks and state infrastructure, and they pay for things in their own city that they don't use. But an Edmond resident's property taxes dont' go to OKC funded projects, unless the Edmond resident does business in OKC that would add money to that pool. So if we're talking about the outskirts of OKC paying a higher tax rate, that'd be one thing. It'd be a bad idea in my mind, but it'd be something that could actually be done.

But if we're talking Plutonic Panda's suggestion? The idea that someone even thought of that is baffling to me. Edmond isn't OKC, it's a separate city run by it's own government. One city cannot impose higher property on another city and take the revenues to fund their own projects. It's that basic, that's why there are city limits, because that's the extent that a city can impose city laws. If someone wants their property taxes to fund OKC, then they can move to OKC. Otherwise, we already have mechanisms for outside residents using a city to provide funding for that city, in the form of sales tax.

[Just the facts]

I agree with this statement. Most costs of sprawl are localized to the specific city where it is occurring. Let's take Norman as an example.

The state, via gas taxes (mostly), pays for the construction and maintenance of state and federal highways in Norman and those leading to Norman. Currently, the state is funding the upgrading and widening of I-35 in Norman. Even if sprawl never occurred in Norman, I-35 needs many of the safety updates and bridge/pavement reconstruction that the state is doing so all of the expenses of the I-35 projects cannot be attributed to sprawl.

The other major costs of sprawl are paid for by people living in Norman (and those non-Norman residents shopping in Norman).

Some examples of recent Norman city "sprawl" expenses and their major source of funding.

1) Two new fire stations and their equipment - city sales tax
2) Widening of city streets (non-state/federal) - property taxes
3) New and renovated schools - property tax
4) New/bigger country jail - county sales tax
5) Additional police and fire personal - city sales tax

Notice that in each of these five examples, Norman residents or people who "elect" to shop in Norman are funding sprawl and not residents in other cities. The only example where sprawl costs are passed on to others outside Norman is via federal and state roads. The gas tax, however, functions as an indirect "user fee" on those using the roads. The more that you drive on the roads, the more gasoline you must purchase, so the more taxes that you will pay.

My conclusion from this exercise is that sprawl costs are mostly localized to the community that it occurring in and any type of "sprawl tax" that taxes residents in one city to pay for the expenses of another city is unnecessary.

One last thing to remember, as Oklahoma adds population, our new residents/neighbors must live somewhere so some sprawl is inevitable.

One correction, the gasoline tax only covers half of the construction and maintenance of state and federal roads. The gas tax started running a deficit in the late 1950s. The current gasoline tax only raises about $25 billion per year but the Feds spend about $50 billion a year on interstate construction. According to the Highway Engineers Association (not sure what their actual name is) the US Government needs to spend something like $1.5 trillion to get the federal interstate system up to a C grade. We aren't going to get to $1.5 trillion withour current gasoline tax that only generates $25 billion per year. That will take 60 years.

[venture]

T
he concept is that it cost more for the city to make sure people living way the hell outside of the core are able to get into the core rather than just providing for people that already live in the core. I know what you're saying. But, what you have done. The city goes around and asks people if they go to the core or not. Then if you get caught going to downtown Oklahoma City and they catch you, you get fined? It all comes down to where you live. If you live in Yukon, Edmond, MWC, Mustang, Moore, Norman, ect... I think people should have to pay a sprawl tax of some kind on their yearly property taxes and building outside the core. I also think again there should be a higher gas tax. Maybe tax higher in the suburbs.. I don't know exactly how that would work or be implemented but something needs to be done to address sprawl. No offense, but you are contributing to it, as am I. So I think we need to pay our fair share because it isn't fair to the people that live in say Deep Deuce having to pay for six lane(most likely going to have to be widened in the coming years) highway going out into the suburbs that THEY will probably never use. Keep in mind I live Edmond.

Norman is the 3rd largest city in the state. Why should its people be penalized for living there instead of in the larger city of the area? When do you draw the line? Should people in Fort Worth have a penalty for not living in Dallas? I can see what you are trying to achieve, but in reality this idea could only work in a city that controls everything. I also think you would find people go after the politicians who would suggest such a thing.

I'm not sure of your situation, being only 18, but when you get to that point of your life when you are cutting the multi-thousand dollar check every December to the county...your tune might completely when it comes to property tax.

[mugofbeer]

Why should a pay more taxes for living outside the urban core? I do not live there, do not work there, or hardly ever go there!

This has been asked before and can be answered by saying, "Why should I pay taxes for schools if I don't have children? Why should I pay for fire and police for the central city if I live in the burbs? Why should I etc, etc, etc......" I am all in favor of city government encouraging people to rebuild and remodel inner city structures, but the city is what it is and we all pay taxes for projects across the ENTIRE city.

Now, as a former OKCitien who visits family and friends frequently, I have seen the results of light rail in Dallas and Denver - even Salt Lake City on a smaller scale. Those cities are all a bit more urban than OKC. Dallas has far greater traffic congestion than OKC, Denver has a horribly overburdoned highway system and Salt Lake City has a limited amount of room within which to grow. I think OKC's light rail would be successful if it were done the right way, rail put in the right places and everything done to make the use of the rail system most convenient for the rider. My opinion is that the need for the light rail isn't immediate nor should tremendous ridership be expected immediately. The day will come again when gas prices skyrocket and, if not built, we will be wishing there was a good alternative. Rail systems don't happen overnight. They take decades to build out. If it can be done, OKC should be planning for a large scale system today and starting to look for initial funding sources TODAY - knowing it will be 2050 before it may be completed.

[bluedogok]

The main issue is in places like OKC, DFW and the like is that most people don't work in the core, they work outside of the core. Of the 37 years that I lived in OKC I worked a total of 7 months in Downtown OKC, the rest of the time it was always in Northwest OKC. The majority of the people that I have known have always worked in suburban OKC. Until the majority of employment is in the urban core (not just downtown) this will be the norm and the suburbs will be the norm of where people choose to live. The majority of people are not willing to give up the space of the burbs for a much smaller space, I know that we aren't going to especially when the smaller space costs significantly more (like it did in Austin and here in Denver) and a smaller condo type of space doesn't address our needs. The more demand for urban living the higher the prices go and the space goes down. Light rail helps balance the urban and suburban areas.

No matter what the urbanists wishes are, sprawl isn't going away, it even exists in urbanist meccas like NYC, Boston, Chicago, DC, etc. because many people desire living in the burbs even if they work in the core. The main goal should be to increase urban living by those who wish to live there, I know there is a chicken/egg issue in getting a place like OKC to grow urban housing but penalizing suburban development isn't going to necessarily drive urban development. Getting people to move to areas like The Paseo, Plaza District and Gatewood neighborhoods is going to do more than discouraging sprawl. Is there really that much new entry level or step up development happening in the far areas of OKC since the mortgage crisis?

[venture]

I think the last two response show where an issue is in this debate. Suburban OKC is not the same as Norman, Edmond, Mustang, Del City, MWC, etc. Those are completely separate entities. If there is to be any type of suburban penalty it can only be directed at those with in the OKC city limit.

If anything the next major move that should be done is de-annexing a bunch of the undeveloped suburban OKC land so the city isn't responsible for so much.