2010 brings an election for a new Metro President – current President David Bragdon is term-limited. Three very serious candidates are in the hunt for the May primary:
- Councilor Rex Burkholder – a 10-year Metro veteran and former chair of JPACT. Previously he founded the Bicycle Transportation Alliance.
- Bob Stacey – most recently Executive Director of 1000 Friends of Oregon, he has also served as Portland’s Planning Director and in Congressman Blumenaur’s DC office.
- Mayor Tom Hughes – recently retired as Mayor of Hillsboro
The winner of this race will have significant influence on transportation policy in the region, possibly for many years to come. While Portland Transport as a non-profit cannot endorse candidates, we can help educate voters.
I propose that Portland Transport create a questionnaire on transportation policy for this race and publish the responses.
What should we ask? Be specific!
38 responses to “Looking Ahead: Leadership in 2010”
Not an endorsement, but Bob Stacey’s CV also includes a stint as director of service development at Tri-Met.
1. Please explain the social good of mass transit in view of the fact that it does not save energy (or reduce CO2), costs more and is slower compared to driving small cars and it requires massive government subsidy as opposed to cars paying most of their costs through user fees. (Note that, to the extent that cars depend on imported fuels and emit pollution, so do transit buses since transit buses use more energy to transport each person each mile.)
2. What would be the financial, energy and CO2 cost/benefit, to the region, if all personal transpiration needs were met by mass transit (IE: if everyone gave up their cars) Expressed in actual numbers (approximate)?
3. Do you favor reducing people’s ability to travel as a part of a solution to any perceived problem? (Such as sprawl, energy usage, global warming etc.)
4. Do you favor any new taxes?
5. How do we encourage building housing where the jobs are, instead of new housing in Damascus and jobs in Beaverton as appears to be happening now?
6. How will you deal with the high cost of housing for the average income person? Especially in view of the fact that many areas with less restrictive land use regulations have much lower cost of housing.
7. What do you think the average size of a new home should be? On what average lot size?
8. What role do you think peak oil and global warming should play in planning?
9. Under what circumstances do you think that people’s freedom to travel and to live where they want to live should be restricted?
10. Should people be compensated when government action selectively devalues their assets while other people’s same assets are not devalued (or even increased in value)?
What is your stance on the CRC? How does it fit with the goals and direction of Metro?
Would you support a phased-in, revenue neutral gas tax for the metro region? for the state?
Do you support new bus service?
There’s the beginning of some great questions in there JK, but the assumptions and framing you have behind a few of them is off-base or unproven.
1. You’ve never proven your assumptions about cost and efficiency for the actual types of trips in question. Your past attempts at proving this have always conflated urban/rural miles and used national figures even though the results we get locally are different. You’ve also repeatedly ignored the land-use component that relates to this: If transit takes you somewhere that you can then easily walk around to suit your needs throughout the day, then transit further reduces energy consumption.
2. False premise: Nobody (with any power or likely to get any power) is advocating for replacing _all_ trips with transit.
3. Similar to #2: Unless you count the occasional lane restriping or the lack of enthusiasm for large-scale highway widening as “reducing people’s _ability_ to travel”, nobody is advocating for such a thing. Further, global warming is not a “perceived” problem. Nice try at slipping one past the rules, there.
4. Fair enough. Although Metro’s own taxing authority is limited, a popular Metro exec. could be a strong advocate for changes in tax policy and thus have an impact beyond Metro. You may as well ask about tax cuts, too — why have the question be one-sided?
5. That’s a good question.
6. The first part of the question is fine, but the second half again makes an unproven assumption that the housing costs in those other areas are strongly correlated to land-use regulations.
7. There’s a lot of wiggle room in “average”. A neutral question but perhaps a few follow-ups would help.
8. Good question.
9. This is again a flawed, and frankly insulting framing, and is really no different than #3, except that you’ve thrown “where people live” on top of “freedom to travel”.
10. To this I’d add #11: Should people be compensated when the government allows the environment-damaging actions of others to devalue or harm other people’s health? Also for #10: If your assumptions about land-use restrictions driving up the value of housing (see question #6) were actually true, then government action in reducing land-use regulation would devalue properties. Therefore, should the government compensate existing property owners when land-use regulations are reduced?
There’s some good stuff in there, once the framing and unproven assumption problems are dealt with. Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
In addition, how about
#12: Should property owners be forced to compensate the government when governmental action increases the value of their property?
And as an alternate–rather than focusing on “value”, which is subject to lots of unrelated factors beyond zoning and such–should property owners be forced to compensate the government when governmental action increases the permissible uses of their property?
Obviously, I think the answer is “no” to the first question as posed, and “no” in most cases to the second (governments compensation or payout, in any case, is reflected by increases or decreases in tax collections). But there seems to be this “heads I win, tails you lose” attitude among developers and land speculators, who want the public to assume all the risk (and guarantee their price) but permit them to enjoy all the upside benefits.
Obvious difference between Rex and Bob is the Columbia River Crossing. That issue should be on the top of the list as how we proceed with that will determine the transportation future of the region for 20-30 years.
The decision to NOT build the so called Mt Hood freeway set Portland on a different path than most places…for the good in my view. A decision to double roadway capacity across the Columbia in the next 10 years would be a major departure of what has been working pretty well for three decades.
That’s a wonderful idea. How about a survey for Portland City Council candidates?! :D
You’d get at least one reply. ;)
And, oddly enough, I’ll say that strictly IMO I think Jim Karlock’s questions 3-10 are actually very good. I’d be interested in knowing those kinds of answers as well.
Also, has anyone thought of (or is in contact) with anyone like League of Women Voters who publishes a great nonpartisan, non-endorsement voters pamphlet, or the Portland Mercury, who does great local election coverage? It should be easier to get as much factual, nonpartisan, non-paid information about candidates as possible.
Here are some other things that would be great to ask the Metro President Candidates:
Q: What does holding an elected office mean to you?
Q: Metro has authority under ORS (268?) to take over TriMet. As Metro President, would you support using this authority?
Q: TriMet has made using public transportation in the region tougher through constant service cuts since May 2009, which have included elimination of routes such as 74-Lloyd District/Southeast which was popular with professional business commuters and schoolchildren whose destinations were served by the route, and reduction in headways/frequencies of some of TriMet’s most heavily-used bus routes resulting in overcrowding and “pass-ups” and frustration of those stuck waiting in the cold. Do you support reinstatement of such services as a catalyst of public transit usability and ability to further job prospects to those who cannot afford increase vehicle and driver licensing fees, as well as those who cannot or should not be behind the wheel of a private automobile?
Q: Plans such as Metro’s RTP and TriMet’s Transit Investment Plan (TIP) usually present a “best-case” scenario, containing transportation infrastructure and services in a world where local governments aren’t fiscally constrained. The reality is very little of these plans are ever implemented due to very little funding. What do you propose to solve this problem?
Q: Vancouver, Washington… in your opinion, friend or foe of Portland?
Q: How often should the thoughts, suggestions, and concerns from comments of citizen advocates, activists, and public meeting hacks weigh in when you make decisions on projects?
Q: Should we have a regional-based policy for honorary names of public buildings and infrastructure?
Q: If you could see to it that ONE and only ONE transportation project is built during your term of office before re-election, what would it be?
Q: What should be more important: the will of the people, or the interests of big-money political donors?
Q: Your personal thoughts on partisan/campaign printed (and sometimes mailed) elections material?
Jim Karlock (as others have noted) has some good questions – but they are worded far to politically loaded.
The basic fundamental ideas behind the questions are legitimate – but the questions are too much of an attack and employ too much rhetoric or falsehood to be answerable by anyone, let alone someone seeking office.
While we all would like to push out “pet agendas” with each question – the best way to get our questions answered and answered honestly is to craft fair and open questions, and be prepared for some we don’t like.
Sometimes we have to agree to disagree. I may respect and support a politician with whom I disagree. I may not support someone with whom I have much in common. The reality is that we have to look at the job as a whole – and consider the qualifications as a whole for the job. If we are “single issue” voters we will lose on all issues.
I would suggest that we ask about the RTP Project lists, maybe something along the lines of:
Does it make sense to approve a project list as part of plan which does not meet the stated goals of said plan?
But I would need help in rewording that so as to make it not accusatory…
And I like many of the other suggestions as well.
A few more:
1) TriMet has made numerous capital improvements to its rail network over the years, without securing the necessary operational funds. This has resulted in service cuts across the board in down times, with a net negative effect on bus service. How will you ensure that future projects, including Milwaukie MAX and the LO Streetcar, don’t result in diminished service to other parts of the metro area?
2) Related to the first question; TriMet has or has plans to, in several instances, convert operational funding to capital funding to finance projects, including “bonding” payroll tax revenues to pay for planned new construction. Do you approve of this, given that TriMet presently has untapped taxing authority with which to finance new construction, and given that public entities can more easily raise capital than operational revenue?
3) Metro has been a champion of “smart growth” policies, as has the City of Portland. Several suburban municipalities, on the other hand, seem hostile to these policies, and are instead more interested in large expansions to the urban growth boundary near their borders, and in funding auto-centric capital improvement projects.
4) Residents of Vancouver, WA object to tolls on an Interstate Bridge replacement as an unfair tax on them, especially when and where tolls are used as a congestion management technique rather than as a means of financing construction costs. To the extent legally permissible, would you consider tolling other inbound freeways besides the Columbia River bridges, and/or enacting congestion zones?
5) What is your position on the Stafford Basin? Many regard it to be the best candidate for addition to the urban growth boundary due to its lack of prime agricultural land, its proximity to I-205, and the fact that it is the closest to downtown of any region outside the boundary. Yet many critics of Metro allege that the Basin is to be excluded from urbanization due to the political strength of the area’s wealthy residents. How will you ensure that major decisions are made, as much as possible, based on technical rather than political merit?
6) What is your position on park-and-rides? A plus, as they get cars off the freeway during commute times, or a negative, as they don’t get cars off the street altogether?
7) Which constituents should have highest priority when allocating scare transit dollars?
Bob: 1. ..Your past attempts at proving this have always conflated urban/rural miles and used national figures
JK: Aw, come on Bob, we’ve been through this several times and those minor problems do not change the conclusion which is that transit does not save energy compared to small cars (and not all that small!) And there is still cost and travel time in favor of cars.
Bob: You’ve also repeatedly ignored the land-use component that relates to this: If transit takes you somewhere that you can then easily walk around to suit your needs throughout the day, then transit further reduces energy consumption.
JK: But a small car can also take “you somewhere that you can then easily walk around to suit your needs”, and I claim, using less energy.
Bob: 2. False premise: Nobody (with any power or likely to get any power) is advocating for replacing _all_ trips with transit.
JK: It can be surprising what people get power.
Bob: 3. Similar to #2: Unless you count the occasional lane restriping or the lack of enthusiasm for large-scale highway widening as “reducing people’s _ability_ to travel”, nobody is advocating for such a thing.
JK: IBID
Bob: You may as well ask about tax cuts, too — why have the question be one-sided?
JK: Good idea.
Bob: 6. The first part of the question is fine, but the second half again makes an unproven assumption that the housing costs in those other areas are strongly correlated to land-use regulations.
JK: Paul Krugman, Nobel prize winner in economics, wrote:
But in the Zoned Zone, which lies along the coasts, a combination of high population density and land-use restrictions – hence “zoned” – makes it hard to build new houses. So when people become willing to spend more on houses, say because of a fall in mortgage rates, some houses get built, but the prices of existing houses also go up. And if people think that prices will continue to rise, they become willing to spend even more, driving prices still higher, and so on. In other words, the Zoned Zone is prone to housing bubbles. nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html
Bob: 10. …Therefore, should the government compensate existing property owners when land-use regulations are reduced?
JK: A good analogy is: do you pay income taxes when a thief returns stolen goods? And that is the reality of the postulate.
Bob: There’s some good stuff in there, once the framing and unproven assumption problems are dealt with. Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
Thanks
JK
December 28, 2009 4:19 PM
John Reinhold Says: The basic fundamental ideas behind the questions are legitimate – but the questions are too much of an attack and employ too much rhetoric or falsehood to be answerable by anyone, let alone someone seeking office.
JK: How do you suggest phrasing a question where the popular beliefs are easily, proven wrong? Had I not stated the reality, the answer would have a higher likelihood of merely repeating the popular delusion.
BTW: Care to point out any “falsehood[s]” in my questions?
Thanks
JK
Aw, come on Bob, we’ve been through this several times and those minor problems do not change […]
We’ve been through this more than several times, and you’ve never even adjusted for those problems, much less proven that they’re “minor”.
Nor have you ever proven that your hypothetical “small cars” would be the alternative mode if transit were not in place.
As indicated by the framing of your questions, you’re making a lot of assumptions, without proving the case, and assuming a particular ideological point of view. That’s certainly your right — and I don’t think most of the questions posed by anyone thus far are free from ideological underpinnings — but you’ve consistently demanded far more rigorous evidence from others on various topics around here than you’ve provided for your own assertions.
You gotta admit, its kinda amusing to see libertarians quoting Krugman. Methinks that most of what Paul K. would have to say, would drive [Mr.] Karlock nuts.
And to be picky–if you get something stolen and you declare a casualty loss on your tax return (reducing your taxes), and the stolen item re-appears, then yes you do have to declare it as income. Without the deduction, no.
However, comparing a governmental agency rescinding a regulation, with a thief restoring stolen goods, is yet more libertarian framing. We’re all to clever ’round here to buy the “taxation is theft” meme, JK.
[Moderator: Insertion of “Mr.” … maybe just a matter of style but I think it comes off as just a tad disrespectful to refer to someone present in the conversation by last name without modifiers. It was (metaphorically) beaten into me in elementary school by teachers who didn’t appreciate the fad amongst us 6th graders referring to teachers simply as “Jones”, etc. – Bob R.]
Jim Karlock,
I’m very happy to pay a premium to live here, because most libertarians won’t. They get all in a snit about the “distortions to the free market” and so on because both Oregon and to a lesser degree Washington have strong land use restrictions.
I’ve lived in your libertarian wet-dream Houston which has absolutely no zoning or city planning and believe me it’s no Nirvana. The rich Republicans crowd into the little zoned island towns inside Houston (Hunters Creek, Bunker Hill, Spring Valley) and covenanted River Oaks. From their protected enclaves they spout this “free-market” nonsense that allows them to inflict assaults on the surrounding community such as building a battery recycling plant smack in the center of what used to be a middle class community, destroying the property values of the residents.
Oh, yeah. The “free market” is good for the proles, but not for the rich jerks.
See, Jim Karlock, other people can slant things too?
Getting back to the topic at hand:
All politics is local says the proverb and I would ask:
Clark County is outside of the Metro boundary, but is a major component of the Portland Area’s economy, population and demand on resources, such as transportation. How do you plan on incorporating Clark County in Metro planning and regulations, even though it’s located in a different state and Metro has no authority over its population?
Anandakos Says: See, Jim Karlock, other people can slant things too?
JK: If you are claiming that I slanted “things”, please provide example(s) along with credible counter facts to show that I actually slanted things.
Thanks
JK
If you are claiming that I slanted “things”, please provide example(s)
Please don’t pretend not to have read what everyone’s already posted regarding your comments. You are, of course, welcome to disagree or dismiss those observations and opinions, but there’s no need to play coy.
VanRes,
It looks like Jason Barbour cut to the chase on his version of your question about Our Town. “From the Portland perspective, is Vancouver friend of foe?”
I’m sure most Portlanders would put us in the “foe” category, because “they (we) drive on our (their) streets but don’t pay for them”. As I recall some high-up muckety-muck said that a few years ago, conveniently ignoring our income tax “donations” to Oregon.
“A decision to double roadway capacity across the Columbia in the next 10 years would be a major departure of what has been working pretty well for three decades.”
The capacity across the Columbia was doubled within the last three decades, Lenny. The Glenn Jackson Bridge was completed in 1982. I don’t think we need to double it again, but more capacity, in the form of a third interstate bridge, would seem to be in order given projected population increases.
Three questions that I have:
Bob R. Says: Please don’t pretend not to have read what everyone’s already posted regarding your comments.
JK: Did I miss some specific criticisms with supporting, opposing data?
BTW, feel free to provide data to prove YOUR claim that correcting the minor problems you point out would actually change my claimed result a significant amount:
Thanks
JK
Ron,
Where exactly do you propose to place a third bridge? And what exactly do you intend to build to provide access to it that effectively reduces congestion in the I-5 corridor without destroying at least one neighborhood on each side of the river?
Bob,
Let’s all just ignore Jim Karlock and eventually he’ll go away. Everything he posts is hostile to the entire concept of public transportation. He’s against bicycles. He’s probably against walking because Democrats by and large are the walking community, although I do have to admit he hasn’t said so.
He wants everyone to drive everywhere for every trip. He wants no governmental expenditure on transportation except for road building and, presumably, maintenance.
Fine, we all know what he’s going to say. Let’s all just ignore him and let him spew his 1950’s Robert Moses ideology into a great silence.
Where exactly do you propose to place a third bridge? And what exactly do you intend to build to provide access to it that effectively reduces congestion in the I-5 corridor without destroying at least one neighborhood on each side of the river?
There’s a website discussing the Third Bridge Corridor:
thirdbridgenow.com
I’m not so sure I agree with the routing north of the Washington side of the Columbia River or the routing south of Smith Lake, but the idea is to relieve congestion through the I-5 bridge corridor by getting traffic that doesn’t have to go through there on another route.
Back to the topic please. This is NOT a CRC post!
Anandakos Says: Everything he posts is hostile to the entire concept of public transportation. He’s against bicycles. He’s probably against walking …
JK: Thanks for suggesting more questions:
11. Should sound science and data be used as the foundation of public policy? For instance should a particular mode of transportation be formally shown to save money, energy, people’s time or some other public benefit before it is promoted by government?
12. Should safety be considered before promoting certain modes of transport? (I only ask because LRT and bikes both have death rates considerable higher than buses and cars?)
13. While walking has certain advantages of providing exercise, should we find out for sure how it affects energy consumption (IE: food production, etc.) and consider the cost of its being slower than driving?
14. Should transportation funds be spent roughly proportional to actual usage, or should they favor certain politically popular modes.
15. Should each mode of transportation pay its own way though user fees/fares? If not, why should some modes of transportation costs be subsidized? (This is not meant to address the financially needy-that is topic separate from mode.)
Thanks
JK
16. Should we continue to advocate reductions in VMT, or instead target whatever harmful effects are thought to be the result of VMT? (IE: Target the undesirable effect instead of VMT.)
Thanks
JK
Jason,
Well I have to admit that this proposal doesn’t appear to damage any neighborhoods on the Portland side of the river because of the new Willamette crossing that bypasses St. Johns completely.
I’m not sure it helps congestion on I-5 much because the vast majority of cars that take it will just jump back on at the Columbia Boulevard on-ramp. But, the branch to just east of Sauvie Island would be good for Vancouver to Tech Corridor commuters.
But — you know there had to be one — the plan will drag hundreds of cars an hour down Fruit Valley Road on the Vancouver side. That black line on Mill Plain/14th is a red herring. Most of the traffic heading to this bridge will take Fourth Plain, 39th, 78th or 99th to Fruit Valley or a new “westside bypass” that the concrete barons are proposing. As a resident of West Vancouver I don’t like that one bit, but I’m sure that the people who live along I-5 in North Portland didn’t like it being built forty years ago, either.
P.S. The website would be much more persuasive if the creators could spell.
One thing I didn’t think about in the previous post: this bridge does absolutely nothing to provide priority for HOV vehicles in the primary travel corridor (e.g. I-5). That’s a problem that the Feds will not stand still for.
This cannot be a complete replacement for an improvement at the CRC for that reason. The new Willamette crossing might be a very valuable addition to the regional road network by taking Washington County to river area traffic out of St. Johns, but only in conjunction with an improvement at the CRC.
(sneaking this info in under the radar)
Anandakos, Your questions could be answered by your fellow Democrat, Sharon Nasset. For serious inquiries, go visit her at 5007 N. Lombard.
When you say “the plan” will do this or that, just remember that any plan will do something significant to some part of this region, given the population growth that is anticipated. So what do you do that upsets the smallest group of people? Maybe that’s why putting a route in where there isn’t already a lot of settlement is the way to go. And since we are seriously reducing the mileage between two very significant centers that should make it more palatable for mass transit, bicycles, motorcyclists, (Maybe I will have to run another story on double decker buses. It would be interesting to find what NY and SF’s experience with them was; that should make the blue-staters here less uncomfortable, assuming they like it.)
For myself, I am generally for less government spending since I figure that the $40 billion or so in the hopper for transportation projects ( figuring in LRT AND freeway improvements) could add many more job seekers to our mix…and actually make those population projections come true.
I’m not sure it helps congestion on I-5 much because the vast majority of cars that take it will just jump back on at the Columbia Boulevard on-ramp. But, the branch to just east of Sauvie Island would be good for Vancouver to Tech Corridor commuters.
Not sure that it is that limited. And the “Tech Corridor” did have the biggest area of blue splotches (urban reserves) on METRO’s latest map.
Anandakos, once you read this message you are ordered to either destroy it or make it otherwise indecipherable. I hear someone coming…..
Should each mode of transportation pay its own way though user fees/fares
Yes, should drivers get subsidies such as these?
That is pretty laughable, Jason.
Count vacant transit seats as if they were full!! (And most other stuff on that page.) The fact is that transit users pay about 20% of the actual cost of transit.
Please stay on the topic of this thread.
Thanks
JK
please stay on the topic on this thread
thread
??/?r?d/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thred] Show IPA
Use thread in a Sentence
See web results for thread
See images of thread
–noun
1. a fine cord of flax, cotton, or other fibrous material spun out to considerable length, esp. when composed of two or more filaments twisted together.
2. twisted filaments or fibers of any kind used for sewing.
3. one of the lengths of yarn forming the warp or weft of a woven fabric.
4. a filament or fiber of glass or other ductile substance.
5. Ropemaking.
a. any of a number of fibers twisted into a yarn.
b. a yarn, esp. as enumerated in describing small stuff.
6. something having the fineness or slenderness of a filament, as a thin continuous stream of liquid, a fine line of color, or a thin seam of ore: a thread of smoke.
7. the helical ridge of a screw.
8. that which runs through the whole course of something, connecting successive parts: I lost the thread of the story.
9. something conceived as being spun or continuously drawn out, as the course of life fabled to be spun, measured, and cut by the Fates.
10. Computers. a series of newsgroup messages dealing with the same subject.
11. threads, Slang. clothes.
–verb (used with object)
12. to pass the end of a thread through the eye of (a needle).
13. to fix (beads, pearls, etc.) upon a thread that is passed through; string.
14. to pass continuously through the whole course of (something); pervade: A joyous quality threaded the whole symphony.
15. to make one’s way through (a narrow passage, forest, crowd, etc.).
16. to make (one’s way) thus: He threaded his way through the crowd.
17. to form a thread on or in (a bolt, hole, etc.).
18. to place and arrange thread, yarn, etc., in position on (a sewing machine, loom, textile machine, etc.).
–verb (used without object)
19. to thread one’s way, as through a passage or between obstacles: They threaded carefully along the narrow pass.
20. to move in a threadlike course; wind or twine.
21. Cookery. (of boiling syrup) to form a fine thread when poured from a spoon.
Origin:
bef. 900; (n.) ME threed, OE thr?d; c. D draad, G Draht, ON thrathr wire; (v.) ME threeden, deriv. of the n. See throw
~~~~>How’s that for staying on topic mr karlock?
transit users pay about 20% of the actual cost of transit
Well let me put it this way: Shouldn’t passengers only be responsible for what they actually use, which is just one seat? The thing is that other passengers can be added to the bus without the passenger having to do anything and without the passenger being greatly affected. The cost of 1/40th of a bus trip is about the same whether it’s full or has one passenger. And it’s not their fault that other people don’t ride.
In addition, a bus trip is going to run whether that passenger rides or not, so the money to run it is going to be spent anyways. Overall, it’s not like dial-a-ride service where avoidable costs are spent to serve each passenger because adding passengers requires additional travel time to serve their origin/destination and because it only runs when a passenger wants it, meaning that money is specifically spent to serve them.
Jason,
Even though you may think a city would function better if significantly more people would simply choose to live in housing that integrates well with public mass transit, a lot of other people may not see it that way. I like an urban core myself, but the HOA fees associated with it (comparable to property taxes, which you still have to pay) cause me to think twice. I am also finding that I have very poor tolerance, anymore, for noises at night, so unless I was several stories above any busy street that would rule out a lot of urban environments. I also don’t like noisy people living above me—so wood framed condos would be out, leaving the more expensive concrete condos.
Other people might need more room than an urban condo affords, for various activities. Or they might believe their children would be safer in a quality suburban location, instead of exposed to some of the less desirable aspects of the urban scene.
I am not arguing with you that, per dwelling unit, suburban housing tracts are more expensive to build. I agree that autos are much of a nuisance to buy and maintain. But the reasons people choose that lifestyle could be far more complicated than your analysis indicates.
I’m not really saying that people should live one way or another. I’m just pointing out how we’ve gotten to the marketplace we have now through subsidies and not the free market, especially since certain (maybe many) people don’t realize that.
Overall, I think that people should pay for what they use and cause, and then they could live how they want to and deal with the consequences of their choices.