What would it ACTUALLY take for you to consider biking or taking the bus, in lieu of motoring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would need affordable housing and better schools in DC to live near enough to my job to bike.

For metro: I suppose I could drive and park at the metro and then metro to work - but that would take longer than driving and cost more than gas (I get free parking at work).

This is a major factor in people's choices. When there is free parking, people are more likely to choose to drive by themselves than when they have to pay for parking.

That people take cost into consideration of their choices is not revolutionary insight. Time is also a cost that people take into consideration, which is something that you don’t seem to understand.

OP's question is: What would it ACTUALLY take for you to consider biking or taking the bus, in lieu of motoring?

So one answer is: if people who currently don't have to pay for parking would have to pay for parking.

However, life is offing hard enough as it is, and we shouldn't use sticks when we can use carrots to shape behavior, especially when what we'd consider as carrots is the bare GD minimum public service in Capitals around the world.
Let's continue to make it easier to use transportation modes that aren't cars. Take the burden of transporting thousands of independent kids to school away from parents in their personally-owned vehicles. Continue to grow public transit and protected bike lanes so that as they become safer and more convenient, they become the obvious choices.

The only "stick" we really need to step us is enforcement of traffic rules in the city, including ensuring MD and VA scofflaw drivers with tens of thousand of dollars in unpaid tickets for their dangerous driving and parking habits pay those tickets and fix their behavior.

We can use sticks as well as carrots. In setting policy, we usually do use sticks as well as carrots. If you even think it's a stick to stop subsidizing "free" parking, vs. simply removal of a carrot to reward driving.

A company providing their employees parking is not a “subsidy”.

Of course it's a subsidy: a parking subsidy. Under certain circumstances, it's even a considered a fringe benefit by the tax code. Just like it's a transit subsidy for my employer to pay for my Metro fare.

It’s not a subsidy if the parking space has a market value of $0.

It doesn't, though. Just like there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's also no such thing as free parking.

http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PrefaceHighCostFreeParking.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would need affordable housing and better schools in DC to live near enough to my job to bike.

For metro: I suppose I could drive and park at the metro and then metro to work - but that would take longer than driving and cost more than gas (I get free parking at work).

This is a major factor in people's choices. When there is free parking, people are more likely to choose to drive by themselves than when they have to pay for parking.

That people take cost into consideration of their choices is not revolutionary insight. Time is also a cost that people take into consideration, which is something that you don’t seem to understand.

OP's question is: What would it ACTUALLY take for you to consider biking or taking the bus, in lieu of motoring?

So one answer is: if people who currently don't have to pay for parking would have to pay for parking.

However, life is offing hard enough as it is, and we shouldn't use sticks when we can use carrots to shape behavior, especially when what we'd consider as carrots is the bare GD minimum public service in Capitals around the world.
Let's continue to make it easier to use transportation modes that aren't cars. Take the burden of transporting thousands of independent kids to school away from parents in their personally-owned vehicles. Continue to grow public transit and protected bike lanes so that as they become safer and more convenient, they become the obvious choices.

The only "stick" we really need to step us is enforcement of traffic rules in the city, including ensuring MD and VA scofflaw drivers with tens of thousand of dollars in unpaid tickets for their dangerous driving and parking habits pay those tickets and fix their behavior.

We can use sticks as well as carrots. In setting policy, we usually do use sticks as well as carrots. If you even think it's a stick to stop subsidizing "free" parking, vs. simply removal of a carrot to reward driving.

A company providing their employees parking is not a “subsidy”.

Of course it's a subsidy: a parking subsidy. Under certain circumstances, it's even a considered a fringe benefit by the tax code. Just like it's a transit subsidy for my employer to pay for my Metro fare.

You just noted that it is an employment benefit but still try to claim it’s a “subsidy”. My free advice is to stop trying to pretend to be an economist, you don’t sound as clever as you think you do.

It's possible for the same thing to be an employment benefit and a subsidy. For example, the employer contribution to health insurance, which subsidizes employees' health insurance.

In fact, DC law recognizes "free" parking as a subsidy. Employers who have employees who turn down parking benefits must offer a Clean Air Transportation Fringe Benefit in an amount equal to or more than the market value of the parking benefit minus the employee's contribution to the parking expense subject to the maximum tax-free benefit allowed by the IRS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would need affordable housing and better schools in DC to live near enough to my job to bike.

For metro: I suppose I could drive and park at the metro and then metro to work - but that would take longer than driving and cost more than gas (I get free parking at work).

This is a major factor in people's choices. When there is free parking, people are more likely to choose to drive by themselves than when they have to pay for parking.

That people take cost into consideration of their choices is not revolutionary insight. Time is also a cost that people take into consideration, which is something that you don’t seem to understand.

OP's question is: What would it ACTUALLY take for you to consider biking or taking the bus, in lieu of motoring?

So one answer is: if people who currently don't have to pay for parking would have to pay for parking.

However, life is offing hard enough as it is, and we shouldn't use sticks when we can use carrots to shape behavior, especially when what we'd consider as carrots is the bare GD minimum public service in Capitals around the world.
Let's continue to make it easier to use transportation modes that aren't cars. Take the burden of transporting thousands of independent kids to school away from parents in their personally-owned vehicles. Continue to grow public transit and protected bike lanes so that as they become safer and more convenient, they become the obvious choices.

The only "stick" we really need to step us is enforcement of traffic rules in the city, including ensuring MD and VA scofflaw drivers with tens of thousand of dollars in unpaid tickets for their dangerous driving and parking habits pay those tickets and fix their behavior.

We can use sticks as well as carrots. In setting policy, we usually do use sticks as well as carrots. If you even think it's a stick to stop subsidizing "free" parking, vs. simply removal of a carrot to reward driving.

A company providing their employees parking is not a “subsidy”.

Of course it's a subsidy: a parking subsidy. Under certain circumstances, it's even a considered a fringe benefit by the tax code. Just like it's a transit subsidy for my employer to pay for my Metro fare.

It’s not a subsidy if the parking space has a market value of $0.

It doesn't, though. Just like there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's also no such thing as free parking.

http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PrefaceHighCostFreeParking.pdf

I didn’t say the space didn’t cost anything to build or maintain. I said it had a market value of $0. If the thing an employer gives an employee has no market value then there’s no subsidy. You really don’t seem to know anything about economics.

[Anonymous]

I just took a new position. After driving for 10 years I’m going to start taking VRE and Metro 3x a week. I suppose I’m in the minority.

[Anonymous]

Main thing that did it for me was a locker room at work. I can leave clothes there, arrive in bike gear, shower, get dressed and be at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would need affordable housing and better schools in DC to live near enough to my job to bike.

For metro: I suppose I could drive and park at the metro and then metro to work - but that would take longer than driving and cost more than gas (I get free parking at work).

This is a major factor in people's choices. When there is free parking, people are more likely to choose to drive by themselves than when they have to pay for parking.

That people take cost into consideration of their choices is not revolutionary insight. Time is also a cost that people take into consideration, which is something that you don’t seem to understand.

OP's question is: What would it ACTUALLY take for you to consider biking or taking the bus, in lieu of motoring?

So one answer is: if people who currently don't have to pay for parking would have to pay for parking.

However, life is offing hard enough as it is, and we shouldn't use sticks when we can use carrots to shape behavior, especially when what we'd consider as carrots is the bare GD minimum public service in Capitals around the world.
Let's continue to make it easier to use transportation modes that aren't cars. Take the burden of transporting thousands of independent kids to school away from parents in their personally-owned vehicles. Continue to grow public transit and protected bike lanes so that as they become safer and more convenient, they become the obvious choices.

The only "stick" we really need to step us is enforcement of traffic rules in the city, including ensuring MD and VA scofflaw drivers with tens of thousand of dollars in unpaid tickets for their dangerous driving and parking habits pay those tickets and fix their behavior.

We can use sticks as well as carrots. In setting policy, we usually do use sticks as well as carrots. If you even think it's a stick to stop subsidizing "free" parking, vs. simply removal of a carrot to reward driving.

A company providing their employees parking is not a “subsidy”.

Of course it's a subsidy: a parking subsidy. Under certain circumstances, it's even a considered a fringe benefit by the tax code. Just like it's a transit subsidy for my employer to pay for my Metro fare.

It’s not a subsidy if the parking space has a market value of $0.

It doesn't, though. Just like there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's also no such thing as free parking.

http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PrefaceHighCostFreeParking.pdf

I didn’t say the space didn’t cost anything to build or maintain. I said it had a market value of $0. If the thing an employer gives an employee has no market value then there’s no subsidy. You really don’t seem to know anything about economics.

If it has a market value of $0 then someone gets it for $0 and nobody else gets it.

[Anonymous]

I'm staying in Florida at the moment, where literally everyone drives. It's a shame. When I get back to DC I'm gonna put my car in long-term storage and give car-free living a try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
For instance:
What if work or shops were closer to homes?
What if bus stops were located on your residential corner and came every 5-7 minutes dependably?
What if the roads were redesigned so that the bike lanes were universal and protected, or adjacent to sidewalks (not in the roadway)?
What if stores provided free and secured bike parking/valeting?
What if buses were free, and the purchase of e-bikes/cargo bikes was heavily subsidized?

Making buses free is catering to people who already have limited options. Better idea would be to instead spend that money on vastly improving convenience, like, much more frequent and routes that minimize the number or difficulty of transfers. That would bring more people that have the option of driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For instance:
What if work or shops were closer to homes?
What if bus stops were located on your residential corner and came every 5-7 minutes dependably?
What if the roads were redesigned so that the bike lanes were universal and protected, or adjacent to sidewalks (not in the roadway)?
What if stores provided free and secured bike parking/valeting?
What if buses were free, and the purchase of e-bikes/cargo bikes was heavily subsidized?

Making buses free is catering to people who already have limited options. Better idea would be to instead spend that money on vastly improving convenience, like, much more frequent and routes that minimize the number or difficulty of transfers. That would bring more people that have the option of driving.

There's no need to choose between either no-fare bus service or better bus service. We can have both. We should have both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would need affordable housing and better schools in DC to live near enough to my job to bike.

For metro: I suppose I could drive and park at the metro and then metro to work - but that would take longer than driving and cost more than gas (I get free parking at work).

This is a major factor in people's choices. When there is free parking, people are more likely to choose to drive by themselves than when they have to pay for parking.

That people take cost into consideration of their choices is not revolutionary insight. Time is also a cost that people take into consideration, which is something that you don’t seem to understand.

OP's question is: What would it ACTUALLY take for you to consider biking or taking the bus, in lieu of motoring?

So one answer is: if people who currently don't have to pay for parking would have to pay for parking.

However, life is offing hard enough as it is, and we shouldn't use sticks when we can use carrots to shape behavior, especially when what we'd consider as carrots is the bare GD minimum public service in Capitals around the world.
Let's continue to make it easier to use transportation modes that aren't cars. Take the burden of transporting thousands of independent kids to school away from parents in their personally-owned vehicles. Continue to grow public transit and protected bike lanes so that as they become safer and more convenient, they become the obvious choices.

The only "stick" we really need to step us is enforcement of traffic rules in the city, including ensuring MD and VA scofflaw drivers with tens of thousand of dollars in unpaid tickets for their dangerous driving and parking habits pay those tickets and fix their behavior.

We can use sticks as well as carrots. In setting policy, we usually do use sticks as well as carrots. If you even think it's a stick to stop subsidizing "free" parking, vs. simply removal of a carrot to reward driving.

A company providing their employees parking is not a “subsidy”.

Of course it's a subsidy: a parking subsidy. Under certain circumstances, it's even a considered a fringe benefit by the tax code. Just like it's a transit subsidy for my employer to pay for my Metro fare.

You just noted that it is an employment benefit but still try to claim it’s a “subsidy”. My free advice is to stop trying to pretend to be an economist, you don’t sound as clever as you think you do.

It's possible for the same thing to be an employment benefit and a subsidy. For example, the employer contribution to health insurance, which subsidizes employees' health insurance.

In fact, DC law recognizes "free" parking as a subsidy. Employers who have employees who turn down parking benefits must offer a Clean Air Transportation Fringe Benefit in an amount equal to or more than the market value of the parking benefit minus the employee's contribution to the parking expense subject to the maximum tax-free benefit allowed by the IRS.

I sincerely hope that you are getting paid to do this, because the only other explanations for why you are monitoring this thread and posting replies from 7 AM to 2 AM are somewhat worrying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would need affordable housing and better schools in DC to live near enough to my job to bike.

For metro: I suppose I could drive and park at the metro and then metro to work - but that would take longer than driving and cost more than gas (I get free parking at work).

This is a major factor in people's choices. When there is free parking, people are more likely to choose to drive by themselves than when they have to pay for parking.

That people take cost into consideration of their choices is not revolutionary insight. Time is also a cost that people take into consideration, which is something that you don’t seem to understand.

OP's question is: What would it ACTUALLY take for you to consider biking or taking the bus, in lieu of motoring?

So one answer is: if people who currently don't have to pay for parking would have to pay for parking.

However, life is offing hard enough as it is, and we shouldn't use sticks when we can use carrots to shape behavior, especially when what we'd consider as carrots is the bare GD minimum public service in Capitals around the world.
Let's continue to make it easier to use transportation modes that aren't cars. Take the burden of transporting thousands of independent kids to school away from parents in their personally-owned vehicles. Continue to grow public transit and protected bike lanes so that as they become safer and more convenient, they become the obvious choices.

The only "stick" we really need to step us is enforcement of traffic rules in the city, including ensuring MD and VA scofflaw drivers with tens of thousand of dollars in unpaid tickets for their dangerous driving and parking habits pay those tickets and fix their behavior.

We can use sticks as well as carrots. In setting policy, we usually do use sticks as well as carrots. If you even think it's a stick to stop subsidizing "free" parking, vs. simply removal of a carrot to reward driving.

A company providing their employees parking is not a “subsidy”.

Of course it's a subsidy: a parking subsidy. Under certain circumstances, it's even a considered a fringe benefit by the tax code. Just like it's a transit subsidy for my employer to pay for my Metro fare.

It’s not a subsidy if the parking space has a market value of $0.

It doesn't, though. Just like there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's also no such thing as free parking.

http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PrefaceHighCostFreeParking.pdf

I didn’t say the space didn’t cost anything to build or maintain. I said it had a market value of $0. If the thing an employer gives an employee has no market value then there’s no subsidy. You really don’t seem to know anything about economics.

If it has a market value of $0 then someone gets it for $0 and nobody else gets it.

So what? The next person will just get a different space. If the space has a market value of $0 do you think there’s a surplus or a shortage? Answer carefully. Your housing policy preferences depend on it.

[Anonymous]

An insane vehicle tax like Virginia's is a pretty good motivation to stick to one car in the family.

I bike to work (and take the bus/metro regularly too) and it's a combination of factors.

#1, I have a safe, easy route (mostly multi-use trail) and deliberately chose a dense, bikeable/walkable neighborhood.

#2, I hate to drive and find it stressful.

#3, I enjoy urban living, walking everywhere, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the obesity rate in this country is almost 42%:https://www.tfah.org/report-details/state-of-obesity-2022/#:~:text=Nationally%2C%2041.9%20percent%20of%20adults,obesity%20rate%20of%2041.4%20percent.

Walking and biking require a degree of fitness that most folks simply don't possess. Good luck.

It's sad and true. Less than 5% of people in the US get the recommended $150 minutes of exercise a week! Pretty terrible.

On the flip side, round trip biking to work would take me nearly 150 minutes per day. Who has time for that?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the obesity rate in this country is almost 42%:https://www.tfah.org/report-details/state-of-obesity-2022/#:~:text=Nationally%2C%2041.9%20percent%20of%20adults,obesity%20rate%20of%2041.4%20percent.

Walking and biking require a degree of fitness that most folks simply don't possess. Good luck.

It's sad and true. Less than 5% of people in the US get the recommended $150 minutes of exercise a week! Pretty terrible.

On the flip side, round trip biking to work would take me nearly 150 minutes per day. Who has time for that?!

It would take you 75 minutes each way? In that case, instead of your sassy response, you could answer the OP by saying "living closer to work"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the obesity rate in this country is almost 42%:https://www.tfah.org/report-details/state-of-obesity-2022/#:~:text=Nationally%2C%2041.9%20percent%20of%20adults,obesity%20rate%20of%2041.4%20percent.

Walking and biking require a degree of fitness that most folks simply don't possess. Good luck.

It's sad and true. Less than 5% of people in the US get the recommended $150 minutes of exercise a week! Pretty terrible.

On the flip side, round trip biking to work would take me nearly 150 minutes per day. Who has time for that?!

Two and a half hours on a bike is a round trip of 30 miles.

Just based on distance, you could bike one way and take transit the other way. Or you could bike to transit. Or... How long does your round trip driving trip take? How many minutes of exercise do you get per week?