http://blogs.forbes.com/christopherhelman/2011/05/10/americas-biggest-and-least-gas-guzzling-cities/



I really like this area but I'm sick of driving everywhere.

5/14/2011 3:11:02 PM

2nd - Charlotte Area
6th - Triad


Go North Carolina!

5/14/2011 3:54:56 PM

Really don't have many other options than driving.

5/14/2011 4:04:03 PM

Hmmm $4200 a year in gas and 200k for a 2500 sq ft house....or $0 a year in gas and $2 million for a 2500 sq ft house. Decisions, decisions.

5/14/2011 4:52:15 PM

Talage, albeit not entirely accurate, wins.

5/14/2011 5:22:50 PM

Quote :

"200k for a 2500 sq ft house"

holy shit where did you find that deal? that's insanely cheap. even out here in rocky mount that would be a steal.

5/14/2011 5:30:52 PM

probably east raleigh.

but yeah, not typical of the triangle at all.

$100/sq.ft is on the lower side of typical.

5/14/2011 5:52:35 PM

I might as well plan to move to a larger city if I ever want to do anything other than drive everywhere. Not even planning to have light rail implemented in the triangle until 2025. And traffic is only going to get worse until then.

5/14/2011 7:30:34 PM

Quote :

"Really don't have many other options than driving."

So true and it sucks. They should have broken ground on the damn light rail back in the 90s when they first approved plans for it

5/14/2011 9:02:09 PM

There are no options other than driving, but when you try to fund alternative modes of transportation everyone says "but everyone drives here!"

And the cycle continues.

5/14/2011 9:41:23 PM

Everyone bemoans the lack of good mass transit in the area, but even what is there doesn't get used. I'm the worst kind of offender on this--I could take the bus to work, every day, for free since I work for the university. But I'm lazy and don't want to get up at 6 AM to get on the bus at 6:59 as opposed to getting up at 7 to get in my car at 7:40, since both get me to work at 8. Yes, I'm costing myself money and yes, I'm destroying the environment. But dammit, I like to sleep that extra hour.

5/14/2011 11:03:36 PM

That's because what is there is rarely effective, as you have illustrated in your post by pointing out that you can get to work 3 times faster by taking the car than a bus.

5/14/2011 11:07:53 PM

what is this mythical light rail all of you are referring to? in what skewed perspective on reality does this make any sense?

5/14/2011 11:23:00 PM

In the perspective where moving around is actually possible in some areas without having to have a car. For examples of this perspective, see most of the rest of the world.

5/14/2011 11:25:09 PM

I don't own a car, and strictly rely on public transit/cabs. For 90% of my adventures I get by fine this way, it's that other 10% that make me want to get a car. Can't quite ride the subway to the ski hill. I live in Boston.

5/15/2011 9:02:43 AM

Zipcar

5/15/2011 10:29:40 AM

Quote :

"holy shit where did you find that deal? that's insanely cheap. even out here in rocky mount that would be a steal."

LOL, wut?

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Rocky-Mount_NC/price-180000-200000


And here are some (although not many) in the Raleigh area...
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Raleigh_NC/type-single-family-home,mfd-mobile-home,condo-townhome-row-home-co-op/price-180000-200000/sqft-11?source=web

[Edited on May 15, 2011 at 10:59 AM. Reason : Raleigh]

5/15/2011 10:54:29 AM

Quote :

"Hmmm $4200 a year in gas and 200k for a 2500 sq ft house....or $0 a year in gas and $2 million for a 2500 sq ft house. Decisions, decisions."

plus buy an electric car/hybrid = double win

[Edited on May 15, 2011 at 10:59 AM. Reason : `]

5/15/2011 10:59:02 AM

Quote :

"I don't own a car, and strictly rely on public transit/cabs."

just for the record, taking a cab isn't saving anything environmentally.

5/15/2011 11:33:50 AM

Quote :

"what is this mythical light rail all of you are referring to? in what skewed perspective on reality does this make any sense?"

Obviously has never lived somewhere with effective mass transit.

5/15/2011 11:37:05 AM

Quote :

"Not even planning to have light rail implemented in the triangle until 2025. And traffic is only going to get worse until then."

Actually, for most cities it is after implementing light rail that the traffic gets worse.

Light rail is absurdly expensive, sucking dollars away from more effective means of transit, such as building more roads, widening existing roads, or expanding bus service. "Rail is so much more expensive per passenger mile, and so inflexible, that it generally forces a shrinkage in the total number of riders at the same time that budgets explode"
http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2010/09/22/urban-light-rail-fail/

5/15/2011 11:54:07 AM

ibquagtalksaboutgetting115mpg

5/15/2011 12:31:16 PM

^^

Quote :

"Considering the initial $1. 4 billion capital cost of the system, Phoenix has therefore spent over $70,000 per daily rider just to build the system. This is an astonishing number — no wonder the riders of the system love it! The taxpayers of Arizona bought rail riders a commuting vehicle that costs nearly three times the $23,800 list price of a Prius III hybrid. The city could have, rather than build the system, bought every regular daily rider a new car and still had nearly a billion dollars left over — and those who got the car would have had a transportation option that went anywhere in the city, not just to 28 stops along a single 20-mile line. "

Didn't bother reading past this.

5/15/2011 1:09:41 PM

^ you shouldn't need to. That paragraph alone sums up neatly why light rails are ridiculous notions that only a whacko liberal could get behind.

5/15/2011 2:00:09 PM

I think the people in the triangle just need to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. The majority of people around here are driving SUV or trucks.

5/15/2011 2:27:27 PM

If you are going to make an argument that it is a waste of money, demonstrating you have no concept of capitalizing an asset over it's lifespan is a great start. In other news, look at those idiots spending $200K on a house when they could rent 12 houses for a year for that price!

5/15/2011 2:30:05 PM

^ you are correct there are more assumptions that need to be made.

Are you assuming there are no maintenance costs on the rail???


With $1 billion in savings you better find a whole hell of a lot "lifespan capital" to sway anyone.

5/15/2011 2:49:38 PM

Quote :

"look at those idiots spending $200K on a house when they could rent 12 houses for a year for that price!"

wut?

5/15/2011 3:06:18 PM

Obviously there are lifecycle and maintenance costs on the rail. I'm just saying "we could buy everyone cars for what we spent to built the rail, case closed!" is not a good argument. Especially when you are accusing the people you disagree with of having the facts-be-damned attitude, based on flawed "analysis".

Also, I doubt even the biggest proponents of light rail are going to argue that it will pay for itself with no public subsidy, especially before land use catches up. A better metric for the fiscal costs would be comparing the impact on congestion against the cost of additional highway miles that would be needed to accommodate those trips. That doesn't even get into the tourism/economic development, convenience and environmental goals that are often touted as well, but is necessary if you are going to take the fiscal responsibility angle.

Also, the cost-effectiveness and time to build ridership won't be the same in every community. It is in general harder to add efficient transit after developing without it than developing around transit, and that shouldn't be news to anyone.

5/15/2011 3:10:45 PM

Quote :

"A better metric for the fiscal costs would be comparing the impact on congestion against the cost of additional highway miles that would be needed to accommodate those trips."

If you read the article, the rail line in question was built by tearing a lane out of an existing highway. During rush hour, that lane used to carry more people per hour than the new rail they spent billions replacing it with.

5/15/2011 3:42:24 PM

^^^foreclosure market

[Edited on May 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2011 5:21:28 PM

NRR is to blame for driving couches all around the triangle

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message.

5/15/2011 5:27:46 PM

correct me if i am wrong, or if this source isn't credible, but wouldn't this:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/real_estate/1103/gallery.Fastest_growing_metro_areas/4.html


have a lot to do with us being the most gas guzzling?

30% is a lot.

i mean it seems like to me that raleigh was never meant to be a city of +1 million people.
and we're struggling to keep up.

5/15/2011 7:01:38 PM

Well, the original figure is per capita.

So supposedly our population has already been taken into account.

But, yes, our rapid population growth has contributed to the gas-guzzling situation because the development hasn't been wisely planned, and we haven't kept up by providing alternative transportation options. But that's exactly what we're being called out for.

5/15/2011 7:52:37 PM

^^It does, but it doesn't have to. Poor planning (or lack thereof) policies allowed it to.

Quote :

"light rails are ridiculous notions that only a whacko liberal could get behind"

It's hilarious that transportation is somehow being made into a right vs left issue. Thankfully there are still plenty of conservatives who don't take the bait (Pat McCrory being a great example of that). Paul Weyrich has also written some good stuff on the subject: http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/weyrich3.pdf

Quote :

"Actually, for most cities it is after implementing light rail that the traffic gets worse. Light rail is absurdly expensive, sucking dollars away from more effective means of transit, such as building more roads, widening existing roads, or expanding bus service. "Rail is so much more expensive per passenger mile, and so inflexible, that it generally forces a shrinkage in the total number of riders at the same time that budgets explode" http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2010/09/22/urban-light-rail-fail/"

While there are some legitimate criticisms here, there is so much wrong in this article... I notice that someone in the comments section there responded to part of it in a better phrased way than I probably could.

Quote :

"The argument that it would be cheaper to buy every passenger a car is one frequently heard from opponents of rail transit. The make of the car sometimes varies from a Prius to a Mercedes to a BMW, but the flawed assumptions behind the argument are constant. First, as another commenter pointed out, arguments in favor of cars count the cost of vehicle purchases and associated operating costs, but seldom include the underlying infrastructure of roads, traffic signals, etc. Second, the argument does not take into account differences in vehicle longevity. Many drivers replace their cars within 10 years, but rail cars usually last for several decades. A more accurate comparison would count the cost of replacing the Prius for each passenger several times over. Speaking of passengers, the “buy everyone a car” argument seems to assume that the same passengers are riding light rail every day. While there are certainly many daily rail users, there are also many passengers who use it a few days a week, or just once in a while for special events. If the argument is cheaper that it would be possible to buy every rail passenger a car, then that argument should be based on the much higher count of unique passengers, not the number of daily boardings. Of course, it would be neither practical nor desirable to buy a car for every rail passenger, even if it were indeed cheaper. Some passengers should not be driving at all due to youth or disability. Others should not be driving at the moment due to fatigue or intoxication. Rail opponents would argue that the bus is good enough for those populations, and bus transit certainly is an important as a lifeline for the working poor. Nevertheless, few major cities can attain significant transit ridership without the combination of bus and rail. Despite all the arguments about efficiency, the simple fact remains that buses are noisy, uncomfortable, slow, and stigmatized in comparison to rail. They attract passengers who have no other options, but do little to draw discretionary riders unless they connect to rail. It’s hardly the case, though, that a program for the poor has been co-opted by middle class. In actuality, making transit attractive to the middle class often helps improve transit for everyone, including the poor. The history of transit here in Phoenix confirms this. The same voter-approved initiative that funded construction of the 20-mile light rail starter line in Phoenix has also funded a considerable net increase in bus service over the past decade. Even as rail opponents play up recent bus service cutbacks due to the recession, they ignore the lack of any Sunday or evening bus service in Phoenix prior to the March 2000 transit initiative. Even if one argues that all of the proceeds from the .4% Transit 2000 tax should have been spent on bus improvements, it is unlikely that voters would have approved a bus-only initiative. Moreover, the comprehensive bus network envisioned by rail opponents probably would run with considerably fewer passengers than rail due to the lack of enthusiasm for buses among discretionary passengers. The argument about diminished capacity on the road where light rail now runs in Phoenix matters only if the roads chosen for the route were at or near capacity prior to rail construction. For the most part, that wasn’t the case. Washington Street, Jefferson Street, and Apache Boulevard were all underutilized because they had long ago been eclipsed by the 202 Freeway. Running rail on those streets actually allows for more efficient use of road capacity no longer needed for cars. The argument that trains run at higher capacity in one direction than another is also incorrect in Phoenix. In fact, one of the greatest successes of Phoenix’s light rail implementation has been the evenness of its utilization. Trains headed in one direction are often as full as trains headed the opposite way, and trains traveling on weekends are often as full as trains traveling during the weekday rush hour. Compare this situation to most freeways, which are often overloaded at rush hour but have room to spare during off-peak hours. Light rail opponents keep having to rely on increasingly far-fetched and backward-looking arguments in order to sustain their denial of the project’s success. Rail opponents lost two elections, in 2000 and 2004, and then had to resign themselves to seeing the 20-mile starter line built over their objections. During rail construction, they advanced arguments that no one would ride the train, especially in the summer heat. Now, as ridership totals continue not only to exceed initial forecasts, but also grow year-to-year, they have only the claim that the money could have been better spent to fall back on. Even in the unlikely case that the money could have been better spent, light rail is now up and running. The more productive conversation, then, should be about how to operate light rail as efficiently as possible and how best to expand transit of all types to reach more of the metropolitan area."

In addition to the things they did not mention, light rail is NOT always more expensive per passenger mile. It varies from project to project. Light rail also does not come with many of the externalities that are not paid for by highway users, such as congestion, safety, and environmental impacts.

Saying that light rail sucks money away from roads and bus service is kind of a silly notion; we need all three of them, and right now the only one sucking up all the money is roads, which receives an absurd share of funding. It's been proven time and time again that you cannot road widen your way out of congestion; induced demand just increases traffic volumes. Even if you could, I don't really see how it is smart to have a transportation system that completely built around one mode. Like many other things in life, diversity is a key to transit systems. The fact is a car is not practical in all scenarios, not to mention that there are many people who physically cannot drive a car, cannot safely operate a car, or simply do not want to drive a car. These people have been ignored for decades.

The other thing missing here is that fixed rail transit is a method of encouraging more controlled growth. It encourages growth to focus at key nodes, and you can drive down to Charlotte and take a look at the Lynx Blue Line to see a great example of this in its early stages, as there is a lot of development taking place around many stations on the line. This is not something that happens with bus routes, even BRT usually, because rail has a permanence that makes investors and business owners more willing to commit. It is an infrastructure investment that can be relied on to remain indefinitely.

5/15/2011 8:00:06 PM

BTW Lynx has had tons of controversy too, and the Democratic mayor trying to unseat McCrory was running on the fact that LYNX was cited as an "inefficient use of federal taxpayers dollars". For another example of wonderful light rail in the area look at the clusterfuck known as The Tide. That has also been managed to shit with a hidden cost overrun of over $100 million! But hey, at least the taxpayers dollars keep flowing in to pay for it.

5/15/2011 9:05:57 PM

Of course it has controversy. Anything that doesn't involve striping down more automobile lanes in this country is going to have controversy. There is an overwhelming majority that see LYNX as a giant success.

As for the The Tide, I don't see how you can cite cost overruns on that project as a problem with light rail in general rather than mismanagement and misinformation on one particular project. If we're doing that, I could say the Big Dig in Boston is evidence why no more highways should ever be built.

5/15/2011 9:09:45 PM

It depends on your definition of "success". Can you call it a success b/c ridership is quite high? I suppose, but success is probably best judged by ridership revenue and how that factors into operational costs. And it fails there.

There isn't a rail system in the country that doesn't operate at a loss. Even NYC's subway system doesn't turn a profit.

5/16/2011 12:09:17 AM

Quote :

"what is this mythical light rail all of you are referring to? in what skewed perspective on reality does this make any sense?"

Quote :

"In the perspective where moving around is actually possible in some areas without having to have a car. For examples of this perspective, see most of the rest of the world."

Quote :

"Obviously has never lived somewhere with effective mass transit."

Thanks for letting me in to each of your skewed little worlds. Please share your thoughts on who will pay for this? Big daddy Uncle Sam with his monsterous surpluses? Or how about ole Bev in her infinite wisdom and leadership...she would probably pay for it right? Well Meeker, he might..::heading for exit door as quickly possible::..nevermind him.

Finally, please name one place where "mass transit" is warranted in Raleigh? Because you know everyone works in the same place here and we all live in the same place too in Raleigh. Flawed logic abounds among our Obama bandwagoneer generation of social utopians and fiscal retards.

5/16/2011 12:10:30 AM

^^Actually, there is. Amtrak turns a profit on the northeast corridor, especially with Acela which returns 169% of its operational cost. But, you were talking about local rail I assume.

No one is denying that mass transit receives a government subsidy. Of course it does. That is one of the main reasons why it is a service that the government must provide to begin with. But, why is it okay for roads to operate at a loss but not rail? There isn't a road system in the country that doesn't operate at a loss.

Quote :

"Flawed logic abounds among our Obama bandwagoneer generation of social utopians and fiscal retards."

lolwat? Mass transit = President Obama's invention?!?!! On the flip side, I love this new bandwagoner generation of conservatives who previously had nothing against rail transit but now crusade against it simply because a Democrat President made it one of his issues.

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 12:17 AM. Reason : .]

5/16/2011 12:11:37 AM

I know you loved that zinger on the end

5/16/2011 12:31:23 AM

Quote :

"There isn't a rail system in the country that doesn't operate at a loss. Even NYC's subway system doesn't turn a profit."

is there a single roadway in the country that operates at a profit? not everything in the world has to make money for it to be worthwhile.

5/16/2011 12:37:38 AM

I bike for 90% of my daily adventures. Then I drive my pickup truck for the remainder, mainly to haul stuff from Costco or out to the farm. I moved to Durham because it was more bike friendly, and easier to get around.

But yeah, light rail would compel me to go to Chapel Hill or Raleigh more- we drive there like 3x a year.

5/16/2011 12:47:38 AM

Quote :

"and right now the only one sucking up all the money is roads, which receives an absurd share of funding."

^ But roads do not operate at a loss. the government often runs a surplus through the road user fee on gasoline and diesel, depending on the year and level of government. Even when it is operating at a loss, the net subsidy per passenger mile is always puny compared to mass transit systems.

"Likewise, a significant portion of current transportation funds is spent on
projects with popular or political appeal but little mobility benefits. The many metro areas that spend 30-50% of all transportation funds on transit, bicycle and walking paths that account for less than 10% of travel (and thus are spending only 50-70% on the road system that carries at least 90% of travel) will continue to have vast unmet “needs.”
http://www.heartland.org/full/28206/Restoring_Trust_in_the_Highway_Trust_Fund.html

5/16/2011 12:51:41 AM

okay then forget i said roads. the point is that the gov't is not a business. if the choice is between making the country so polluted that you can't live in it, or spending money on public transit the latter should win.

5/16/2011 12:54:21 AM

Quote :

"Finally, please name one place where "mass transit" is warranted in Raleigh?"

I'd like to see a train from somewhere in central raleigh, with maybe a stop in N. Cary, out to RTP.


I think you have to look at light rail as an investment, unlikely to make money in the near term but possibly very valuable in the future. Gas isn't going to stay at $4 a gallon forever (can't believe I just said that ).

5/16/2011 7:30:56 AM

^^ No such choice exists. The only two uncontrollable outputs of an internal combustion engine burning gasoline is water and CO2, everything else is an engineering problem that can be regulated away. In fact, that is why gasoline has historically been the fuel of choice in America: diesel engines could not meet America's stringent air pollution standards without expensive modifications until recently.

^ And when gasoline is $10 a gallon then the most cost effective mode of transportation remains a bus. At some point it becomes reasonable to run the buses on natural gas or even overhead wires. But as I understand the engineering and economic challenges, at no point does light rail become cheaper.

5/16/2011 8:18:58 AM

Quote :

" But yeah, light rail would compel me to go to Chapel Hill or Raleigh more- we drive there like 3x a year. "

This is why I would like to see comprehensive rail in the Triangle. I used to live in a town with two rail lines. I would travel to the next major town, a similar distance between Raleigh and Chapel Hill, at least twice a week. I practically never make that same trip to Chapel Hill now. Why? Because turning my brain off while riding a train seems like less of a hassle than driving that same distance. I really do think you would see more people take advantage of everything our area has to offer if a car wasn't your only reasonable means of getting to places.

5/16/2011 8:27:41 AM

Quote :

"I think the people in the triangle just need to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. The majority of people around here are driving SUV or trucks."

Can't tow my boat or trailers full of four-wheelers with a car.

5/16/2011 8:42:16 AM

i want a dirigible service between downtown raleigh, durham, greensboro, charlotte, etc.

5/16/2011 9:13:00 AM