The basic idea behind congestion pricing is to charge people to enter crowded areas of cities during peak hours as a way to relieve traffic. The charge is normally collected through license plate images like how E-470 in Denver or 407 in Toronto collect their tolls. The cities that have a congestion pricing system set up include:
London
Stockholm
Milan
Singapore
The American cities that are looking at congestion pricing are:
New York
San Francisco
In your opinion, what city or cities should start a congestion pricing system? I might add a poll later.
I'm not a big fan of congestion pricing, it seems to unfairly toll the residents of the city that happen to drive, regardless of how great (or poor) public transit is.
iwiwc: For the travelers that do have to drive, congestion pricing allows the road to be priced so traffic is reduced, saving them time. Think of an old Soviet bread line; you could wait for under-priced bread, or you could skip the line and buy bread priced at market-rate.
I oppose congestion pricing. Especially in America, there are some people who cannot switch to public transport. And think of people who live way out in the sticks and need to do something downtown; should they really have to choose between having to pay extra or having to find somewhere to park and take public transport into the congestion pricing zone? That sort of thing doesn't reduce traffic or emissions at all.
The Bay Area toll bridges are now using congestion pricing...which has basically caused me to time my entry (on weekdays) into SF after 7 PM, when the toll drops from $6 to $4 on the CalTrans-maintained crossings.
It's actually affected my decision-making as far as when to drive out to visit family.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 22, 2010, 02:34:46 AMI oppose congestion pricing. Especially in America, there are some people who cannot switch to public transport. And think of people who live way out in the sticks and need to do something downtown; should they really have to choose between having to pay extra or having to find somewhere to park and take public transport into the congestion pricing zone? That sort of thing doesn't reduce traffic or emissions at all.
I have my own doubts about congestion pricing, but they have less to do with the principle of charging more for a resource at the times when it is scarce, or the regressive impact of congestion charging on the poor, than with its effects on traffic and downstream economic activity. I think a congestion charge, set high enough to have a measurable effect on traffic levels (which after all is the purpose of most congestion charges), is likely to destroy colocation efficiencies and thereby suppress productive economic activity. In this respect it is like the idea of having a development charge for land, which can suppress development to the extent that a housing shortage is created because builders have no incentive to build new houses. Also, it has been argued that a revenue-neutral congestion charge could have the effect of encouraging congestion in off-peak hours because the higher charges during the peak artificially lower the charges at other times of the day, which in turn falsely signal an abundance of roadspace.
In regard to the effect of congestion charging on people living out in the sticks, I actually don't think that is a primary concern. The cities which have either implemented or are considering a congestion charge tend to be large "world cities" where it is already a far more difficult proposition to get from "the sticks" to the city lights using just a car. For example, I lived sixty miles outside London for years and would never have considered going into inner London with a car, and the introduction of the congestion charge in 2005 made no difference to my thinking. Oxford to Paddington by rail was usually just 50 to 55 minutes (the variation being largely due to timetable inflation as an indirect result of rail privatization) whereas Oxford to central London by bus or car could easily take two to three hours and was never a palatable option for reasons of comfort alone. In large American cities like New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. it is somewhat easier to get from a rural area to downtown by car but there is still considerable variability in journey time (i.e., journey time reliability is very low) and in terms of traffic it is nowhere near as easy as in, say, Wichita or Oklahoma City.
There tend in any case to be very few types of business that must be transacted in the downtown of a large city rather than in a smaller regional center. In the case of London, the only examples that come to mind are enrollment for a biometric identity card or research at the National Archives, both of which are adequately served by railborne public transport. I can see myself going to downtown Los Angeles to visit Map Files at Caltrans District 7 (which used to be on Spring Street though I think it has since moved to a new building--on Main Street?), and possibly to do archival research at the Los Angeles Public Library, but not much else. The main leisure draws of downtown areas in large cities are cultural facilities like museums, theatres, opera houses, etc. and by their nature they offer their users wide scope to choose off-peak travel times (museums and theatres have midday opening or midday performances, while opera is stereotypically an "evening out" well after the afternoon peak period).
In general, I don't think playing with price signals using congestion charging will either eliminate the need for capacity expansion or supply a revenue stream that can be used to finance significant amounts of it. You don't see congestion charging being used on a large scale in countries which are really serious about expanding or upgrading their infrastructure--think Germany or Spain.
I also oppose congestion pricing. The long-term effects are much smaller than the initial effects, thus after a few years, traffic is back to normal, while paying extra tax. Most effect is outside rush hour.
Another problem is the decision-making regarding the congestion charge. For example in Stockholm, a referendum was used in the central city and 12 adjacent municipalities. But they based their decision only on the outcome of the central city (53% in favor), while all 12 surrounding municipalities voted against it. It's like wanting the opinion of the people, but not the opinion of those most affected by the charge. I called that a democratic farce.
Congestion pricing also exists on the HOT lanes of Interstate 95 that currently exist from downtown Miami to the Golden Glades interchange (Florida's Turnpike, FL 826, FL 9 and US 441).
Congestion pricing for trucks (but not cars) exists on the Illinois Tollway system. The objective is to get trucks to use the tollways during off-peak times.
The idea to have congestion pricing in New York died in the state legislature a year or two ago.
I personally don't see a big problem with it.
We accept downtown parking lots that charge less on nights and weekends.
Hotels and motels often charge more during peak seasons and around special events.
Back when everyone paid for long distance, per minute rates were lower on nights and weekends. Even now, many cell phone plans count minutes during the day but not on nights and weekends.
These are all very similar to congestion pricing in that you pay more when it's in more demand.
I wouldn't mind if if public transit was better or up to European standards, but it isn't so in many cases, people have no other logical and time-efficient choice other than to drive.
Then they can drive at different times. It's like I-66 near DC, except with congestion pricing instead of HOV restrictions.
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 22, 2010, 09:56:04 PM
I wouldn't mind if if public transit was better or up to European standards, but it isn't so in many cases, people have no other logical and time-efficient choice other than to drive.
It's a chicken and egg problem though. Why would people push for more or better public transit when the roads are essentially free to begin with? Since roads are basically a free resource (in that users do not directly pay directly for their use in most instances), they are in much higher demand than they would otherwise be. Congestion pricing is an attempt to level out the playing field somewhat, to bring a more proper economic relationship to the situation. As it is now, the only two factors in most roads and their use is supply and demand. However, in most markets supply and demand are regulated by price. If supply can't be increased to meet more demand, then the cost should go up. That doesn't happen with roads, so people make irrational decisions on how to use them because they're free.
Congestion pricing is simply a method to better allocate a scarce resource. As mightyace mentioned, we accept this in most other markets, so why not roads? Without it, we end up with huge highways choked with traffic during rush hour, and nearly empty at other times of the day. That's a huge waste of capital and resources. By properly pricing the infrastructure, it will encourage people to use it more rationally, such as at off peak hours, or by carpooling, or taking transit, or even moving closer to work, and it will reduce wear and tear and the need for future highway expansion. Where alternatives are not generally available, the congestion pricing will bring in revenue to fund alternatives, and citizens will want more of those choices in how they get around since roads aren't artificially free anymore.
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 22, 2010, 09:56:04 PM
I wouldn't mind if if public transit was better or up to European standards, but it isn't so in many cases, people have no other logical and time-efficient choice other than to drive.
Europe is much more than central London or Paris. Automobile usage is not that much lower in Europe outside the largest cities...
Somehow Americans (not necessarily on this forum) think Europe is some kind of public transport heaven where nobody ever needs to drive a car, or cannot afford to drive a car due to $ 7 fuel prices... 84% of the EU passenger travel is by car... This is only 8% lower than the United States.
That 84% stat can be very misleading. Does it include walking or biking, or is that not tracked? Is that 84% when factoring in distance (i.e. one 84 mile drive and 16 mile-long walks)? How long are their trips compared to the USA? 84% of 4,000 miles per year is much different than 84% of 16,000 miles per year.
Europe is a public transport heaven when compared to the USA. People can choose to not have a car and still get around to most places just fine. That expensive gas makes their use of cars much more rational, but of course it doesn't eliminate it. Also, while there are plenty of suburban areas in Europe, they're also much better scaled and easier to get around with or without a car. Yes they're low density, but they're arranged a bit more like traditional towns with Main Street type shopping areas that aren't relentlessly separated from residents, usually with commuter rail or other transit connections to the broader metro area nearby.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 22, 2010, 02:59:30 AM
The Bay Area toll bridges are now using congestion pricing...which has basically caused me to time my entry (on weekdays) into SF after 7 PM, when the toll drops from $6 to $4 on the CalTrans-maintained crossings.
It's actually affected my decision-making as far as when to drive out to visit family.
Actually, the congestion pricing is only on the Bay Bridge (I-80). Tolls on all other Caltrans-maintained bridges is $5. On the Bay Bridge, the toll is $6 Monday thru Friday from 5-10am and from 3-7pm, $4 during non-commute hours (7pm-5am and 10am-3pm, Monday thru Friday) and $5 on the weekends.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 23, 2010, 02:18:30 PM
That 84% stat can be very misleading. Does it include walking or biking, or is that not tracked? Is that 84% when factoring in distance (i.e. one 84 mile drive and 16 mile-long walks)? How long are their trips compared to the USA? 84% of 4,000 miles per year is much different than 84% of 16,000 miles per year.
84% of passenger travel miles, compared to train, buses and urban rail transport. It does not take into account walking and cycling, but outside the Netherlands, the cycling share is too marginal to be statistically significant.
QuoteEurope is a public transport heaven when compared to the USA. People can choose to not have a car and still get around to most places just fine. That expensive gas makes their use of cars much more rational, but of course it doesn't eliminate it.
It is possible to reach every downtown, suburb, back house and back water by public transport. But, a major issue is travel time. The Netherlands has about the worst congestion and most extensive public transport system of Europe, yet 90% of the rush hour travels requires twice as much time with public transport, a branch of the Dutch ministry of finance has surveyed.
So yes, it is available, but no, it is not a serious alternative in most cases. Considering there are more passenger cars than households, people still prefer to own a car, although granted, car ownership in the Netherlands is slightly lower than say France or Germany. It's too expensive to keep a little-used car.
What politicians often forget about public transport is the additional transport to reach your destination. Often, this could be as much as the train travel time for example. I used to have a girlfriend who lived 80 miles away. It took only 57 minutes to travel the 60 miles, but an additional 50 minutes to get from my home to the station, and from the station to her home, either by bus or cycling. With the car, the whole route took only 70 minutes, which saved me around 40 minutes one way. It's not much of a choice then.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 23, 2010, 12:27:27 PMIt's a chicken and egg problem though. Why would people push for more or better public transit when the roads are essentially free to begin with? Since roads are basically a free resource (in that users do not directly pay directly for their use in most instances), they are in much higher demand than they would otherwise be.
By the same reasoning, you could argue that providing public schools encourages women to get pregnant because they don't have to pay for their kids' education.
QuoteCongestion pricing is an attempt to level out the playing field somewhat, to bring a more proper economic relationship to the situation. As it is now, the only two factors in most roads and their use is supply and demand. However, in most markets supply and demand are regulated by price. If supply can't be increased to meet more demand, then the cost should go up. That doesn't happen with roads, so people make irrational decisions on how to use them because they're free.
I have to disagree with certain key elements of your analysis. Yes, it is true that most markets are regulated by price signals. However, most other markets--with the exception of the market in land--have reasonable elasticity of demand with regard to price combined with some ability to increase supply in response to sustained high demand, which helps keep long-term elasticities at a reasonable level. Taking Mightyace's example of long-distance telephone service, it is much easier for the telephone companies to add new infrastructure for handling long-distance calls at times of peak demand than it is for highway agencies to widen roads.
Regulation by price breaks down when demand is inelastic with regard to price. When that is the situation, as is arguably the case with roadspace in many congested areas, it becomes very difficult to calculate a fair price and thus almost impossible to apply congestion pricing without imposing deadweight loss on the economy. The preferred public policy then becomes one of building elasticity into the system, either through coordinated land-use changes or through eliminating the information asymmetries which allow congestion to develop in the first place.
I would argue that there is in fact a lot of elasticity in the demand for road space. However, it's certainly not instant. It can take years for proper adjustments to take place. That doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing.
Quote from: Zmapper on September 21, 2010, 09:01:33 PM
In your opinion, what city or cities should start a congestion pricing system?
None of them. They should add capacity instead or build separate tollways. The roads financed with our tax dollars should be toll free.
Quote from: Landshark on September 23, 2010, 08:26:52 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on September 21, 2010, 09:01:33 PM
In your opinion, what city or cities should start a congestion pricing system?
None of them. They should add capacity instead or build separate tollways. The roads financed with our tax dollars should be toll free.
I'm of the opinion that we have too many roads as it is, and need to start focusing on alternatives rather than endless road expansion programs. It's been proven over and over that adding road capacity does not fix congestion in the long term, it only induces more driving, and within a decade or two the wider road is just as congested as before. Also, taxes don't come anywhere close to paying the full cost of roads and driving in general. Thus it makes sense that users should directly pick up some of those extra costs, especially when they're using the roads excessively.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 23, 2010, 08:37:59 PM
Also, taxes don't come anywhere close to paying the full cost of roads and driving in general. Thus it makes sense that users should directly pick up some of those extra costs, especially when they're using the roads excessively.
Where is your evidence for this claim?
Now, recently, it has started falling short, but gas taxes, registration and tolls have generally covered the cost of the roads. Even so, the shortfall is often made up with "General Fund" taxes.
The cost of driving the vehicle has always been on the driver.
And, could you please define "driving excessively?" That seems to be a very subjective item.
Quote from: deanej on September 23, 2010, 12:06:04 PM
Then they can drive at different times.
Sometimes they can't. When your employer wants you to show up to work is often not negotiable.
Even before the Trust Fund went into the red, that money is only used for Interstate and some state/US routes. Most other surface streets (which make up the enormous majority of the road network) are paid for out of local property taxes and in some cases state income taxes. So those "General Fund" taxes are coming from everyone, regardless of how much or how little they use the roads. Now, there's lots of things that are like that in the world, like the taxes that go to pay for schools which come from everyone in the community whether they have children or not. However, things like schools or hospitals or fire and police departments and libraries all things that benefit society as a whole. Having good transportation is good for society as well, but roads impose other burdens beyond merely their cost to build and maintain.
The cost of driving goes way beyond just making payments on your car or filling up the gas tank. It also creates noise, air, and water pollution. It requires places to park which have to be subsidized by businesses and home builders, thus making goods and housing more expensive, thus reducing the maximum available utility of a lot of property. The political and military meddling in other countries that have oil, and the military escorts for vulnerable oil shipments is another big factor. None of these are costs which are borne by drivers, they're externalized to all citizens of the country and even the world as a whole. It's only fairly recently that these costs have finally come back around to bite us in the ass.
As for driving excessively, anywhere that's congested enough to be considering peak pricing is somewhere that has too much driving going on. What may be excessive in one place might be normal in another, but the point is that any highways or bridges that are routinely congested are ones that are (by definition) being used excessively.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 23, 2010, 09:34:22 PM
As for driving excessively, anywhere that's congested enough to be considering peak pricing is somewhere that has too much driving going on. What may be excessive in one place might be normal in another, but the point is that any highways or bridges that are routinely congested are ones that are (by definition) being used excessively.
Not necessarily, all it means is that the roads there there is not enough road to meet demand. Now, whether there should be more road or less driving, should be handled on a case by case basis and not by blanket statements.
For example, the Sure-kyll Expressway into Philadelphia has been congested ever since it opened in the late 1940s. Over driving, in this case, I think not, but under capacity.
I'll leave examples of "too much driving" as an exercise to the reader.
EDIT:
But, there is a simple reason that roads are so popular: FREEDOM!
With a car you can go where you want, when you want. With all other forms of transit, you are beholden to the company or government entity that runs it as to where you can go and when.
To the extreme, if cars were abolished, then we'd be back to the days when only the rich and powerful could travel long distances and rural America would be back to the horse.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 23, 2010, 09:34:22 PM
But, there is a simple reason that roads are so popular: FREEDOM!
With a car you can go where you want, when you want. With all other forms of transit, you are beholden to the company or government entity that runs it as to where you can go and when.
Is bicycling or walking included in that ALL statement of yours? Last time I checked, they are not included in any congestion pricing system because:
1. Due to their smaller sizes, they do not take up much space; thus not contributing to congestion as much as cars do.
2. People do not pollute. While one could consider the materials needed to make a bicycle, they dwarf in comparison to the amount of materials it takes to make a car and to operate it.
Why are you not complaining about signal timings and turn restrictions? They are essentially government meddling as to when and where you may travel. Signal timings can also be used to give priority to special interests and richer areas.
Quote
To the extreme, if cars were abolished, then we'd be back to the days when only the rich and powerful could travel long distances and rural America would be back to the horse.
Has anyone other then extremists seriously considering banning ALL cars on a macro scale? Charging for peak demand does not equal banning. Plus, it is not like congestion pricing has been seriously proposed in rural Nebraska.
Quote from: mightyace on September 23, 2010, 09:58:35 PM
But, there is a simple reason that roads are so popular: FREEDOM!
With a car you can go where you want, when you want. With all other forms of transit, you are beholden to the company or government entity that runs it as to where you can go and when.
It's only freedom if you can afford to buy, fuel, maintain, and insure a car, and are not disabled, too young, or too old to drive it. There's a very large number of people in the world who do not meet those criteria, so how do they get to experience that freedom? They can't. The ability to go where you want when you want comes with certain costs, and those costs must be paid for. It's incredibly inequitable to make everyone pay for those costs even when they can't benefit from them.
Freedom is about having choice, and it's not a true choice when you can only pick between driving here and driving there, or living in this isolated subdivision or that isolated subdivision. You should be able to choose to have a car, or live without one, to ride your bike or to walk rather than drive, to build a store or home with parking spaces or without them. As it is, our choices are so skewed in the name of "cars=freedom" that everything else is compromised to the point that it's not a true choice anymore.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 23, 2010, 08:37:59 PM
I'm of the opinion that we have too many roads as it is, and need to start focusing on alternatives rather than endless road expansion programs.
That doesn't make sense. The alternatives do not make economic sense. Just look at cost benefit analysis. Plus it restricts freedom of movement. Where I live, we do not have enough road capacity and plenty of design deficiencies to correct.
QuoteIt's been proven over and over that adding road capacity does not fix congestion in the long term, it only induces more driving, and within a decade or two the wider road is just as congested as before.
There is nothing wrong with more driving. We need to discourage mass transit, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility.
QuoteAlso, taxes don't come anywhere close to paying the full cost of roads and driving in general.
Gas and car tab taxes generate a far greater % of the costs of the road/highway system than fares cover the costs of mass transit. Do the math; more roads, less wasteful mess transit.
This is aaroad.com, correct?
Quote from: Landshark on September 23, 2010, 10:45:48 PMWe need to discourage mass transit, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility.
can you substantiate this? I am on both sides of the fence here: I use mass transit for my commute, and put in more than enough miles driving to get to faraway places.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2010, 10:47:36 PM
Quote from: Landshark on September 23, 2010, 10:45:48 PMWe need to discourage mass transit, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility.
can you substantiate this?
I live in the Puget Sound area, take a look at the costs and benefits of the Sounder Rail and the Sound Transit Lightrail. They are throwing away massive amounts of $ to do nothing but benefit the few people where it is convenient to use. They routed the lightrail line down a corridor that already had a high % of transit users. So instead of using the cheaper, more flexible existing bus system, they are pulling users away to a significantly more expensive mode of transportation on gerrymandered route that does little to provide an alternative to congestion.
Other than the most densest population areas, mass transit doesn't pencil out. I can see fast trains replacing shorter airplane flights, but roads are never going away. We need them for access, for movement, for mobility. It is the superior system of transportation. People that hate roads, hate freedom. The folks fighting roads up here hate prosperity and growth, and are smart enough to realize that roads lead to both.
the Puget Sound example sounds like an argument against those specific instances of mass transit, not mass transit in general.
in densely populated areas, I think it works quite well.
Quote from: Landshark on September 23, 2010, 10:45:48 PM
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 23, 2010, 08:37:59 PM
I'm of the opinion that we have too many roads as it is, and need to start focusing on alternatives rather than endless road expansion programs.
That doesn't make sense. The alternatives do not make economic sense. Just look at cost benefit analysis. Plus it restricts freedom of movement. Where I live, we do not have enough road capacity and plenty of design deficiencies to correct.
The design deficiencies can be corrected if they do not involve demolishing large swaths of buildings. And the cost of the project is only one consideration. Whether it would benefit the users and citizens near the project is another. Frequently transit projects don't recoup their construction costs, but the amount that is added to the tax base exceeds the construction costs.
Quote
QuoteIt's been proven over and over that adding road capacity does not fix congestion in the long term, it only induces more driving, and within a decade or two the wider road is just as congested as before.
There is nothing wrong with more driving. We need to discourage mass transit, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility.
What's wrong with more driving, oh yeah, air, water and ground pollution, driving sucks valuable time that could be spent with their families, while driving you can't do work, the stress, etc. We need to discourage highway construction, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners and developers, and restricts use to those that are of driving age, not too old, not disabled, and rich enough to afford to purchase and maintain a car. The people stated earlier are unable to
directly use roads. Mass Transit, by design, doesn't discriminate against about 1/3 of the population.
Quote
QuoteAlso, taxes don't come anywhere close to paying the full cost of roads and driving in general.
Gas and car tab taxes generate a far greater % of the costs of the road/highway system than fares cover the costs of mass transit. Do the math; more roads, less wasteful mess transit.
Mass Transit might actually profit, yes profit, if we didn't throw so much money away on roads that, by design, exclude 1/3 of the population.
QuoteI live in the Puget Sound area, take a look at the costs and benefits of the Sounder Rail and the Sound Transit Lightrail. They are throwing away massive amounts of $ to do nothing but benefit the few people where it is convenient to use. They routed the lightrail line down a corridor that already had a high % of transit users. So instead of using the cheaper, more flexible existing bus system, they are pulling users away to a significantly more expensive mode of transportation on gerrymandered route that does little to provide an alternative to congestion.
I tell you what- I used to ride the 194 bus from downtown to Seatac reasonably frequently when I lived there. I was back a couple weeks ago and took the light rail.
I fail to see how the light rail is better than the now-discontinued 194 bus. It may have been a tiny bit more comfortable, but it wasn't nearly as fast (the 194 took the Bus Tunnel to Busway to I-5 to Seatac, the light rail goes clear to Mt. Baker and MLK, following the speed limit of 35 on MLK which is way out of the way).
I know a lot of people in that area who say "ooo-shiny light rail!" This particularly applies to some of my Mariners fan friends who live in the South Sound who, instead of parking at Tacoma Dome and taking the 594 bus up (which I used to do all the time and was super-convenient), now drive to Tukwila and then catch the light rail, which is A) more driving, B) more expensive, and C) takes longer. That whole system drives me nuts now.
I think it's a status thing.
Buses= something poor people ride on
Light rail= something yuppies ride on
That said, I strongly disagree with the idea of getting rid of mass transit. When I lived in the Puget Sound area, the buses were my best friend (I had a car, but I was there when gas was $4/gallon- I didn't want to pay $20 everytime I drove from Tacoma to Seattle and back!). It just needs to be useful and we need to overcome the social barrier that non-shiny new light rail mass transit is not just for poor people.
fuck status. the bus works. it isn't as fast as commuting to work via car would be, but it is a whole lot less stressful.
if I had to drive the same arterial road for five miles each way, twice a day, during near-peak traffic hours ... I'd lose 10 years of my life. screw that! give me the bus any day.
Quote from: Zmapper on September 23, 2010, 11:06:02 PM
Frequently transit projects don't recoup their construction costs, but the amount that is added to the tax base exceeds the construction costs.
Proof please.
Quote
Whats wrong with more driving, oh yeah, air, water and ground pollution, driving sucks valuable time that could be spent with their family, while driving you can't do work, the stress, etc.[/quote]
Then invent a clean car if you care about that. Also, car = faster and more convenient than transit, unless you are lucky enough to live on a route that well serves your lifestyle and schedule.
QuoteWe need to discourage highway construction, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners and developers,
That's crap. Everyone lives near roads.
Do the math; roads do a better job at a significantly better price.
Quoteand restricts use to those that are of driving age, not too old, not disabled, and rich enough to afford to purchase and maintain a car.
So why did you start this thread? Congestion pricing benefits the rich. Congestion already alters behavior.
QuoteThe people stated earlier are unable to directly use roads.
False. Ever hear of passengers?
QuoteMass Transit might actually profit, yes profit, if we didn't throw so much money away on roads that, by design, exclude 1/3 of the population.
Name them. Also roads serve 100% of the population; drivers, passengers, busses, etc. Cut the canards please.
Quotebusses [sic]
Those are mass transit, by the way.
QuoteThen invent a clean car if you care about that. Also, car = faster and more convenient than transit, unless you are lucky enough to live on a route that well serves your lifestyle and schedule.
Have you even used Puget Sound area transit? It works very well. Get in your car at your house, drive to the park and ride lot. Catch the express bus that goes to a transfer station near your destination. Sound Transit does a pretty damn good job of timing it so all local buses arrive about 5 minutes after the express buses do, so you can then jump on your local bus.
If I'm going from Tacoma to say, Dick's in Wallingford, it takes about 45 minutes by car. It takes about 65 minutes by bus (catch the 35 minute bus from Tacoma Dome to 4th and Jackson, take another bus to somewhere on 45th, then walk (OMG!) three blocks) , but it only costs me $3 (as opposed to about $7 in my Liberty). During rushhour, this gap is lessened since the bus can use the HOV lanes and I can't as a single passenger
Transit restricts freedom of movement? How does having more choices in how to get around do that? Transit does not make roads go away. As I mentioned before, there's a lot of people who can't drive, so why should they be left out? Do they "hate freedom" because they can't drive? That's asinine.
There absolutely is a lot of stuff wrong with more driving. Air pollution, congestion, excessive water runoff/flooding, wars in the Middle East, oil spills in the Gulf. Gas is not going to get cheaper, so it's very naive to think that we should just keep expanding highway systems endlessly if we won't be able to afford to use them. Correcting geometric deficiencies and general safety hazards is a noble goal, but that doesn't mean we need to build huge amounts of new capacity (which makes maintenance even more expensive in the future).
I could just as easily say that massive highways and huge interchanges are a "mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility (for anyone who's not fortunate enough to own a car)." How many developers out there benefitted from the opening of a new highway interchange?
Transit is not the money loser you think it is compared to roads. In general, the best case scenario for transit is that 50% funding comes from fares (this is the case of the Chicago Transit Authority, which is mandated by its charter to maintain that ratio). Most other transit systems are about 30% funded by fares. However, while interstate highways are mostly funded by gas taxes (and they're the most expensive roads), that's still a small portion of the total network. Only half of road costs come from user fees, while the rest is from general funds and some bonds. So in reality we subsidize roads nearly as much as we subsidize transit, on top of requiring private businesses and land owners to provide off-street parking, which is another forced subsidy that's not accounted for.
Nobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads. What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose. A diverse transportation system is akin to having a diverse stock portfolio. It's much less risky when you're diversified, and in the face of diminishing oil reserves, unstable oil suppliers, climate issues, and a lack of capital and credit, we need to be much more diversified in how we get around. The point of a transportation network is to move people and goods, not just cars and trucks.
QuoteNobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads. What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose. A diverse transportation system is akin to having a diverse stock portfolio. It's much less risky when you're diversified, and in the face of diminishing oil reserves, unstable oil suppliers, climate issues, and a lack of capital and credit, we need to be much more diversified in how we get around. The point of a transportation network is to move people and goods, not just cars and trucks.
This is incredibly well put.
Another thing to consider, particularly in the context of a city is parking. If every person in Seattle drove a car into downtown, they'd have to convert several skyscrapers into parking garages. It's just not feasible to get an entire big city's worth of workers cars into a downtown city.
The other option is the suburban sprawl model, and while I will not be mistaken for an environmentalist, I can say that our population is going to continue to grow and we're already running semi-low on developable land (yes, I guess you technically could develop the entire states of Arizona and Wyoming into a giant suburb, but good luck getting all those people water). Mass transit lets us get more people into a smaller space, which in itself is profitable since you're not having to build new water lines and roads and other infrastructure for another pointless suburb.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 23, 2010, 11:23:02 PM
Transit restricts freedom of movement?
Fixed routes, schedules.
QuoteTransit does not make roads go away.
Transit is going after car tab $ and other taxes on drivers to pay for transit. That is wrong. Road users should pay for roads and transit users should pay for transit.
QuoteAs I mentioned before, there's a lot of people who can't drive, so why should they be left out?
This is a canard. Most cars have passenger seats. Need me to show you a picture of a car?
QuoteThere absolutely is a lot of stuff wrong with more driving. Air pollution, congestion, excessive water runoff/flooding, wars in the Middle East, oil spills in the Gulf. Gas is not going to get cheaper, so it's very naive to think that we should just keep expanding highway systems endlessly if we won't be able to afford to use them.
The solution is a clean car, not wasteful transit.
QuoteI could just as easily say that massive highways and huge interchanges are a "mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility (for anyone who's not fortunate enough to own a car)." How many developers out there benefitted from the opening of a new highway interchange?
That's crap since the road network is extensive. Most people live near roads. Check the facts.
QuoteTransit is not the money loser you think it is compared to roads.
That's false. It isn't close.
QuoteHowever, while interstate highways are mostly funded by gas taxes (and they're the most expensive roads), that's still a small portion of the total network.
And states don't have gas taxes too? Man, you are clueless. Where I live, users pay for the roads. Not only do drivers pay for roads, they also have to pay for someone else to use transit.
QuoteSo in reality we subsidize roads nearly as much as we subsidize transit,
That's false.
QuoteNobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads. What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose.
That's great. Other than the bus, mass transit doesn't pencil out in most areas.
Quote from: corco on September 23, 2010, 11:18:23 PM
Have you even used Puget Sound area transit? It works very well. Get in your car at your house, drive to the park and ride lot. Catch the express bus that goes to a transfer station near your destination. Sound Transit does a pretty damn good job of timing it so all local buses arrive about 5 minutes after the express buses do, so you can then jump on your local bus.
U-District to Downtown was the only route where it was more practical for me to use transit than drive. I know the road system around here extremely well, so I can get around problem areas pretty easily. I also have a job that needs a vehicle, so transit doesn't make any sense even if it were convenient.
Because of Seattle's geography, they should have built the lightrail line north.
QuoteU-District to Downtown was the only route where it was more practical for me to use transit than drive.
So, in the interest of flexibility, why not have mass transit? When I lived there, I certainly didn't use mass transit every time I went anywhere, nor did I use my car. Where it was convenient to use mass transit, I used mass transit. Where it was convenient to drive, I drove. What could possibly be wrong with having both options?
QuoteFixed routes, schedules.
I think what we need is a redefinition of freedom of movement. You're free to catch whichever bus you want that runs every 10 minutes- that's pretty free.
I could argue that when I'm in my express bus and it's rushhour and all those cars are clogging the freeway that they are impeding MY freedom of movement.
QuoteThe solution is a clean car, not wasteful transit.
Good luck finding parking for all those cars!
QuoteBecause of Seattle's geography, they should have built the lightrail line north.
As a former South-Sounder I disagree. I do think it would have been way more effective if it followed the I-5 corridor more closely on a line that allowed it to go freeway speeds, however. You could have buses meet the rail at (mostly existing) freeway-side transfer stations and park and rides that serve local areas- if you work downtown that would have been great. Drive to the freeway, get on a fast rail to Seattle, get off downtown, and walk the 5 blocks or so to work without having to detour to Mount Baker at 35 MPH.
Quote from: Landshark on September 23, 2010, 11:16:16 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on September 23, 2010, 11:06:02 PM
Frequently transit projects don't recoup their construction costs, but the amount that is added to the tax base exceeds the construction costs.
Proof please.
In New Jersey, the ARC project is a fine example.
http://njtoday.net/2010/07/30/study-planned-trans-hudson-tunnel-will-boost-home-values/ (http://njtoday.net/2010/07/30/study-planned-trans-hudson-tunnel-will-boost-home-values/)
Quote
Quote
Whats wrong with more driving, oh yeah, air, water and ground pollution, driving sucks valuable time that could be spent with their family, while driving you can't do work, the stress, etc.
Then invent a clean car if you care about that. Also, car = faster and more convenient than transit, unless you are lucky enough to live on a route that well serves your lifestyle and schedule.
The car is only faster because we skewed our transport network towards cars. And a cleaner car still takes up space, still sucks time, doesn't all work to be done, still has the same stress, etc. I'll also add that cars kill 33,000 people each year. Equivalent to a Hiroshima bomb going off every 1.5 years! How many do bikes and trains kill each year? Probably not even 1/10 of 33,000.
Quote
QuoteWe need to discourage highway construction, because it is a mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners and developers,
That's crap. Everyone lives near roads.
Do the math; roads do a better job at a significantly better price.
They still exclude 1/3 of the population. So something is still needed for that 1/3, and that's going to be walking, biking, and transit.
Quote
Quoteand restricts use to those that are of driving age, not too old, not disabled, and rich enough to afford to purchase and maintain a car.
So why did you start this thread? Congestion pricing benefits the rich. Congestion already alters behavior.
Congestion Pricing also allows those that don't drive to breathe better air, have a better transit system, etc. Don't forget that an appropriately priced congestion pricing system allows those that actually do have to drive to have less congestion.
Quote
QuoteThe people stated earlier are unable to directly use roads.
False. Ever hear of passengers?
Then they have to travel when it is convenient for the driver to take them to their destination, meaning that they can't spontaneously take trips.
Quote
QuoteMass Transit might actually profit, yes profit, if we didn't throw so much money away on roads that, by design, exclude 1/3 of the population.
Name them. Also roads serve 100% of the population; drivers, passengers, busses, etc. Cut the canards please.
Look at airport shuttles. Because parking at airports is through the roof, many prefer to take Supershuttle or ride transit. And for an urban setting, look at the jitneys setting up shop in Northern New Jersey; they operate without subsidies because driving is already priced at the crossings to NY and when they park. And many municipal transit routes profit because, again, they go through a tolled choke-point and parking is priced highly.
Quote from: corco on September 23, 2010, 11:27:48 PM
QuoteNobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads. What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose. A diverse transportation system is akin to having a diverse stock portfolio. It's much less risky when you're diversified, and in the face of diminishing oil reserves, unstable oil suppliers, climate issues, and a lack of capital and credit, we need to be much more diversified in how we get around. The point of a transportation network is to move people and goods, not just cars and trucks.
This is incredibly well put.
I have to agree with corco. That is the best way to sum it up!
Quote from: corco on September 23, 2010, 11:41:16 PM
So, in the interest of flexibility, why not have mass transit?
Where it makes sense and pencils out, sure. I am not anti-mass transit, I am anti-wasting money where it fails a cost-benefit analysis.
Quote
As a former South-Sounder I disagree. I do think it would have been way more effective if it followed the I-5 corridor more closely on a line that allowed it to go freeway speeds, however.
I am a South Sounder :nod: It needed to go north because of geography (Ship Canal only has 6 crossings with little room for additional vehicle capacity), it follows one of the most congested corridors (provide an actual alternative instead of the airport tourist train we have now), and also mirrors the largest transit corridor in the state.
I too agree it should have followed I-5. It needed to be a fast spine system, that later could have spur lines as growth and development patterns dictate.
Quote from: Zmapper on September 23, 2010, 11:45:29 PM
In New Jersey, the ARC project is a fine example.
How many other transit projects link to the densest zipcodes in America? Again, mass transit only makes sense in super dense areas or when connecting dense nodes.
Quote
The car is only faster because we skewed our transport network towards cars.
And it should be! It is more than cars, it is moving freight, moving goods and services in a timely, efficient manner.
QuoteThey still exclude 1/3 of the population.
Drop the b.s. please. I already explain above why this is a canard. PASSENGER SEATING EXISTS IN CARS! Using your silly argument, transit excludes 99.99999% of the population because they can't drive the subway.
QuoteCongestion Pricing also allows those that don't drive to breathe better air, have a better transit system, etc.
Again, clean car. So you want car users to directly pay for transit? That's crap. You shouldn't tax my lifestyle to pay for yours.
QuoteDon't forget that an appropriately priced congestion pricing system allows those that actually do have to drive to have less congestion.
We need to add more road capacity, not turn roads into rich people toys.
Quote
Then they have to travel when it is convenient for the driver to take them to their destination, meaning that they can't spontaneously take trips.
And how is this any different than transit? Transit = fixed route, fixed schedule.
QuoteLook at airport shuttles. Because parking at airports is through the roof, many prefer to take Supershuttle or ride transit.
Bad example. Cheaper for me to park at Doug Fox lot at SeaTac than take shuttle
QuoteAnd how is this any different than transit? Transit = fixed route, fixed schedule.
Begging people for rides = A) knowing people, B) being dependent on their schedule. Transit runs every 10-30 minutes on a predictable schedule. My friend Bob who drives me around does not.
I had people a couple times ask me to drive them from Tacoma to Seattle. My response- "Either take the bus or wait until next Tuesday when I'm going up anyway"
There's no conceivable way to argue that depending on other people for rides = more freedom of movement than transit
Have you ever been forced to schedule a ride with someone when you can't drive? I take it he or she didn't drop everything at that moment and rush to serve you. It would be like having a transit system that forces you to wait for the bus to navigate from the bus barn every time on the drivers whim.
QuoteQuoteTransit restricts freedom of movement?
Fixed routes, schedules.
You took my response completely out of context by removing the point that transit is IN ADDITION to roads. Roads+transit=more freedom of movement than roads alone.
QuoteQuoteTransit does not make roads go away.
Transit is going after car tab $ and other taxes on drivers to pay for transit. That is wrong. Road users should pay for roads and transit users should pay for transit.
I agree that road users should pay for roads and transit users should pay for transit. The fact of the matter is, however, that road users pay for disproportionately less than the cost of the roads and the externalized impacts of driving than others. We heavily subsidize all forms of transportation in this country, except for freight rail. If we eliminated the airline bailouts, taxpayer funded airports, general fund bailouts of the highway trust fund, mandatory off-street parking requirements, property and income tax payments for roads, and operating subsidies for transit, then we'd have a more level playing field. Yes it would cost more to use the roads and take the train or fly, but we'd have lower taxes and more choices in how to get around that would maximize efficiency.
QuoteQuoteAs I mentioned before, there's a lot of people who can't drive, so why should they be left out?
This is a canard. Most cars have passenger seats. Need me to show you a picture of a car?
Just because you CAN beg someone for a ride somewhere doesn't mean you should have to. You keep extolling the "freedom" of the road, well for someone who can't drive, begging for a ride from someone else is not freedom. To them, and to people who simply would rather not drive, freedom is the ability to take a train, or ride their bike, or walk somewhere on their own without assistance. Also, since you keep harping on transit riders being a slave to the route and the schedule, well so is the unfortunate child, the blind person, or the elderly who are trying to get into someone's passenger seat.
QuoteQuoteThere absolutely is a lot of stuff wrong with more driving. Air pollution, congestion, excessive water runoff/flooding, wars in the Middle East, oil spills in the Gulf. Gas is not going to get cheaper, so it's very naive to think that we should just keep expanding highway systems endlessly if we won't be able to afford to use them.
The solution is a clean car, not wasteful transit.
Clean cars are a step in the right direction, but not a solution. Electric cars or biofuels aren't going to solve congestion problems, or water runoff, or the lack of credit/capital. The restrictions on who can drive them are still the same too. Besides, even a clean car still takes much more resources to build and operate than transit vehicles, especially with the abysmal occupancy numbers in most cars in this country.
QuoteQuoteI could just as easily say that massive highways and huge interchanges are a "mega waste of money, benefits well connected property owners, and restricts freedom of mobility (for anyone who's not fortunate enough to own a car)." How many developers out there benefitted from the opening of a new highway interchange?
That's crap since the road network is extensive. Most people live near roads. Check the facts.
Again you misinterpreted what I said. There's roads pretty much everywhere, but that new highway and interchange is a huge boon to developers. Light rail and streetcar systems help bring value back to areas that lost it when the transit systems in those built-up areas were dismantled. It's a different sort of situation, but no doubt there's people who benefit from both.
QuoteQuoteTransit is not the money loser you think it is compared to roads.
That's false. It isn't close.
So do you just choose not to believe the numbers I presented?
QuoteQuoteHowever, while interstate highways are mostly funded by gas taxes (and they're the most expensive roads), that's still a small portion of the total network.
And states don't have gas taxes too? Man, you are clueless. Where I live, users pay for the roads. Not only do drivers pay for roads, they also have to pay for someone else to use transit.
Yes states have gas taxes, and that's part of the equation. Federal gas taxes, state gas taxes, tolls, vehicle registration, and truck weight fees still only cover half of the direct road costs, and none of the externalized costs at all.
http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/highways/funding/
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/89803737.html
http://www.repamerica.org/opinions/op-eds/6.html
QuoteQuoteSo in reality we subsidize roads nearly as much as we subsidize transit,
That's false.
See above.
QuoteQuoteNobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads. What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose.
That's great. Other than the bus, mass transit doesn't pencil out in most areas.
Neither do roads. The "penciling out" comes in improved land value, increased economic activity, and more tax revenue. Any transportation improvements, whether roads or transit, bring additional value to the areas they serve. While they may lose money by themsleves, that's more than made up for by the increased development that happens along them. This is where transit is a huge win, because the amount of development they create has a much higher payoff in a smaller amount of space than roads do. Spending $100 million for a few miles of streetcar line can bring in billions of dollars of new development, and thus tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue per year, which is an order of magnitude more than the operating costs of that streetcar line.
I think this video from 1952 is very interesting and to the point. If you don't have time to view it all, skip to 4:00.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOlxIpbnV-Q&feature=player_embedded
Back on the subject of congestion pricing, I oppose it quite strongly for a number of reasons, in large part on principal. Roads are, in my opinion, for the public good and are essential infrastructure--basically everyone, regardless of their mode of transportation, uses them or some part of them. They are already paid for by taxes and registration, and congestion pricing, in my mind, amounts to double taxation. I feel similarly about any sort of toll on publicly-owned roadways as well.
On to the tangent of the whole transit/land use thing--I am a fan of non-chronogeographically dependent forms of transport--i.e. driving as well as biking and walking, as opposed to mass transit. That being said, I recognize mass transit has its place, and I don't necessarily oppose it. In terms of cost-effectiveness and flexibility in routing, and usefulness in a variety of land use settings, buses trump rail in most situations. The bus "image crisis" that
corco alluded to is, however, unfortunately prevailing amongst politician and planner-types. That tendency is particularly evident in Portland, Oregon, where train-giddy politicians, closely allied with construction companies and unions, have been gradually dismantling a rather nice bus system in favor of wildly expensive and slow light rail, streetcar and commuter rail lines, in many cases with lower ridership figures.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 24, 2010, 12:29:13 AM
Neither do roads. The "penciling out" comes in improved land value, increased economic activity, and more tax revenue. Any transportation improvements, whether roads or transit, bring additional value to the areas they serve. While they may lose money by themsleves, that's more than made up for by the increased development that happens along them. This is where transit is a huge win, because the amount of development they create has a much higher payoff in a smaller amount of space than roads do. Spending $100 million for a few miles of streetcar line can bring in billions of dollars of new development, and thus tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue per year, which is an order of magnitude more than the operating costs of that streetcar line.
That situation, 99% of the time, is PR mythology spun by politicians, planners, developers and streetcar manufacturers. Again, one need not look any farther than Portland, Oregon. The vast majority of the development that is supposedly attributed to the Portland Streetcar is actually the result of
billions of dollars of a little something called Tax Increment Financing (TIF), as a part of Urban Renewal Schemes. The various condo buildings that have popped up in places such as the Pearl District and the South Waterfront District did so because of massive long-term property tax subsidies that are actually bankrupting other services, such as the school district (which has been threatening to close at least
two high schools in the past year), public safety, etc. Between the Urban Renewal schemes and other sources, the City of Portland is actually over $6 billion in debt--or just shy of $11,000 per every man, woman and child within the city limits.
The same sort of thing has happened along the MAX Light Rail line as well--the proliferation of high-density development in the Rockwood neighborhood of Gresham under Transit-Oriented Development schemes has resulted in that area basically becoming a slum with a skyrocketing crime rate, with the trains themselves being a particular crime magnet.
-Alex (Tarkus)
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 23, 2010, 11:23:02 PMTransit is not the money loser you think it is compared to roads. In general, the best case scenario for transit is that 50% funding comes from fares (this is the case of the Chicago Transit Authority, which is mandated by its charter to maintain that ratio). Most other transit systems are about 30% funded by fares. However, while interstate highways are mostly funded by gas taxes (and they're the most expensive roads), that's still a small portion of the total network. Only half of road costs come from user fees, while the rest is from general funds and some bonds. So in reality we subsidize roads nearly as much as we subsidize transit, on top of requiring private businesses and land owners to provide off-street parking, which is another forced subsidy that's not accounted for.
Not true. Highway user revenues cover over 90% of the cost of building and maintaining highways of all classes (local roads all the way up to the Interstates). The idea that the federal gas tax pays "mainly" or "only" for the Interstates is a complete red herring--in fact a significant amount of highway work by localities is co-financed by the federal government. Don't waste time with advocacy websites: go direct to the FHWA OHPI data, which will substantiate what I say.
QuoteNobody is advocating removing cars or not building roads. What is being advocated is having a comprehensive transportation network with many modes that serve their best purpose. A diverse transportation system is akin to having a diverse stock portfolio. It's much less risky when you're diversified, and in the face of diminishing oil reserves, unstable oil suppliers, climate issues, and a lack of capital and credit, we need to be much more diversified in how we get around. The point of a transportation network is to move people and goods, not just cars and trucks.
There is certainly an argument to be made for expanded transit provision, especially in densely populated areas where there is high elasticity of traffic demand with regard to supply of roadspace. (You mentioned this in an earlier post in justification of congestion charging, but since the elasticity is with regard to supply, rather than price, it is not automatically a reason to impose congestion pricing.) Transit has high intrinsic capacity and can more easily be scaled up to handle much larger numbers of passengers than highways. But it does not therefore follow that in general there are no social savings from building highways anywhere.
You are also grossly overstating the problem of induced traffic. It is much more of a problem in densely congested regions, e.g. England or the northeastern US, than elsewhere. Trying to solve it can also make matters worse. Britain has refrained from adding new highway capacity, citing induced traffic as part of the justification for that policy, and not only has not been able to reduce the transport intensity of its economy, but also now has a lack of redundancy in the motorway network which is now so severe that a few snowflakes suffice to shut it down.
In regard to the relative efficiency of transit, this depends to a lesser extent on the modal platform chosen and to a greater extent on average load factors, but the general rule of thumb I have seen is that bus-borne transit is only 25% more efficient in terms of fuel consumed per passenger km because of the need to operate a regular service at times of low demand in order to create confidence in the availability of transit (the "empty bus at night" problem). It is also simple reality that transit just doesn't work in thinly populated areas, even in European countries which Americans tend to think have good transit provision. In Britain that is summed up in the phrase
village bus problem. A small settlement is said to have a "village bus problem" when, for example, there is just one bus on one day a week running to the regional center, and a return bus with comparable frequency.
Funding For Highways and Disposition of Highway-User Revenues, All Units of Government, 2008
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10.cfm
Disposition of Highway-User Revenue
67.06% ($122.1 billion) in receipts available for distribution as percent of total disbursement for highways
$36.6 billion Federal, $80.1 billion State, $5.4 billion Local
-4.56% (-$8.3 billion) for non-highway purposes
-8.38% (-$15.2 billion) for mass transit
-2.35% (-$4.2 billion) for collection expenses
-0.06% (-$103 million) for territories
51.72% ($94.1 billion) net total
So this means that the total receipts from user fees, most of which are State and Federal gas taxes, only cover 67% of of the amount spent on roads. Other uses for those funds decrease the amount available to road projects to just under 52%. That means the remaining 48% must be subsidized from other sources.
Revenues Used for Highways
51.72% ($94.1 billion) from user fees (gas taxes and tolls) from above
4.57% ($8.3 billion) from local property taxes
22.19% ($40.4 billion) from general fund appropriations
$10.6 billion Federal, $6.8 billion State, $23 billion Local
6.84% ($12.4 billion) from other taxes and fees
9.60% ($17.5 billion) from investment income and other receipts
10.95% ($19.9 billion) from bond issue proceeds
-5.86% (-$10.7 billion) to intergovernmental payments
100% ($182 billion) net total
So even if gas tax revenues weren't available to be used for mass transit or those "non-highway expenses", road user fees still only bring in about 2/3 of the amount of necessary for direct expenditures on roads themselves. That still doesn't touch the issues of negative externalities from congestion, pollution, mandatory off-street parking requirements, securing oil supplies, and wasted infrastructure caused by sprawl and emptying out cities.
This is why congestion pricing can be a good thing, since as I've said before, it internalizes some of those costs. Roads and highways are a great example of the tragedy of the commons. It's overused because it's basically free to everyone, so everyone makes decisions about how to use it that may be rational to their own interests, but in aggregate it causes the overwhelming of and the breakdown of the system.
To briefly address a few other points, I only mentioned that the problem of induced traffic exists, so I don't see how I could be "grossly overstating" it. In densely congested regions, adding road capacity shifts travel to that corridor. It may shift from surface streets to the widened highway, or from buses or other transit to roads, but it does cause a readjusting. The more insidious aspect though is that it encourages/enables people to live farther away. With that extra road capacity, the subdivision outside the beltway becomes more accessible, and people will move out there because it's cheaper. It's the tragedy of the commons again though, since lots of people see that travel times are good, more and more move out that way, and congestion grows until it gets back to where it was before. This is an especially big problem in regions that aren't experiencing any real growth. All this new infrastructure needs to be built to service these new far-flung suburbs while the population in the central city goes down, and that existing infrastructure still needs to be maintained.
Regarding Portland, you're free to say that the redevelopment was brought on by the TIF zones and not the streetcar/light rail, but how can you prove that? How do you know it wasn't the streetcar? I tend to think it's both. Yes TIF zones by themselves can lead to development, but so does meaningful transit. The level of development is undoubtedly denser and more pedestrian friendly due to the streetcars being there, which improves the quality of life and also the value of the property. TIF is a means to encourage new development by temporarily lowering or eliminating property taxes on the basis that one that grace period is over, the city will have much more taxes coming in from that new development. Is it perfect? No, but it's a great way to jump-start redevelopment in depressed areas and bring them back to life. It's a long-term strategy, just like investing in rail-based transit.
Speaking of which, the bus "image crisis" is not something conjured up by politicians and planners just to support rail. It's a problem with how we use buses in this country and a very valid reaction against them. Without dedicated bus lanes, signal preemption, or decent shelters, schedules, etc., buses have all the problems of cars (getting stuck in traffic, noise, pollution) and none of the advantages. Streetcars, light rail, commuter rail, and subways have a smoother ride, are usually quieter, don't pollute (some more or less than others) and usually have the advantage of at least being given priority over other traffic, if not on a separate right-of-way. This leads to better travel times and more comfort, which can be lacking on buses. Also, rails in the street and a wire overhead is the sort of permanent investment in infrastructure that is needed in many cases to encourage development. Buses are just too ephemeral for most people, they have trouble attracting other riders who may have other options for how to get around. We can certainly do buses a lot better, and I'd like to see that happening more and more, but as it is the poor image of buses is entirely justified.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 24, 2010, 01:18:45 PMFunding For Highways and Disposition of Highway-User Revenues, All Units of Government, 2008
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10.cfm
Disposition of Highway-User Revenue
67.06% ($122.1 billion) in receipts available for distribution as percent of total disbursement for highways
$36.6 billion Federal, $80.1 billion State, $5.4 billion Local
-4.56% (-$8.3 billion) for non-highway purposes
-8.38% (-$15.2 billion) for mass transit
-2.35% (-$4.2 billion) for collection expenses
-0.06% (-$103 million) for territories
51.72% ($94.1 billion) net total
So this means that the total receipts from user fees, most of which are State and Federal gas taxes, only cover 67% of of the amount spent on roads. Other uses for those funds decrease the amount available to road projects to just under 52%. That means the remaining 48% must be subsidized from other sources.
Revenues Used for Highways
51.72% ($94.1 billion) from user fees (gas taxes and tolls) from above
4.57% ($8.3 billion) from local property taxes
22.19% ($40.4 billion) from general fund appropriations
$10.6 billion Federal, $6.8 billion State, $23 billion Local
6.84% ($12.4 billion) from other taxes and fees
9.60% ($17.5 billion) from investment income and other receipts
10.95% ($19.9 billion) from bond issue proceeds
-5.86% (-$10.7 billion) to intergovernmental payments
100% ($182 billion) net total
So even if gas tax revenues weren't available to be used for mass transit or those "non-highway expenses", road user fees still only bring in about 2/3 of the amount of necessary for direct expenditures on roads themselves.
I interpret that and similar tables a different way.
* On the revenue side, the general fund appropriation ($22 billion) is almost completely cancelled out by the deduction for mass transit ($15 billion) and collection expenses ($5 billion).
* On the expenditure side, outlays include administration ($14 billion) and traffic law enforcement ($14 billion).
My view is that administration, law enforcement, mass transit, and tax collection are all extraneous to a self-financing road system. Subtracting administration and law enforcement from expenditure gives $154 billion for expenditures on the highway system. Taking gross highway user revenue of $122 billion and adding investment income of $17 billion, which is fair because the income is generated by highway user fees, gives $139 billion, or 90.2% coverage of highway expenditures by highway user revenues.
QuoteThat still doesn't touch the issues of negative externalities from congestion, pollution, mandatory off-street parking requirements, securing oil supplies, and wasted infrastructure caused by sprawl and emptying out cities.
It is not really useful to talk about externalities without a consistent methodology for quantification (like WTP) and an accounting method which will capture both positive and negative externalities without discrimination.
QuoteThis is why congestion pricing can be a good thing, since as I've said before, it internalizes some of those costs. Roads and highways are a great example of the tragedy of the commons. It's overused because it's basically free to everyone, so everyone makes decisions about how to use it that may be rational to their own interests, but in aggregate it causes the overwhelming of and the breakdown of the system.
This assumes that elasticity issues can be ignored (which is a contentious point in real-world systems and is untrue in the general case) and that price constitutes an adequate signal for purposes of regulating traffic density. The underlying problem is lack of information.
QuoteTo briefly address a few other points, I only mentioned that the problem of induced traffic exists, so I don't see how I could be "grossly overstating" it. In densely congested regions, adding road capacity shifts travel to that corridor. It may shift from surface streets to the widened highway, or from buses or other transit to roads, but it does cause a readjusting. The more insidious aspect though is that it encourages/enables people to live farther away. With that extra road capacity, the subdivision outside the beltway becomes more accessible, and people will move out there because it's cheaper. It's the tragedy of the commons again though, since lots of people see that travel times are good, more and more move out that way, and congestion grows until it gets back to where it was before. This is an especially big problem in regions that aren't experiencing any real growth. All this new infrastructure needs to be built to service these new far-flung suburbs while the population in the central city goes down, and that existing infrastructure still needs to be maintained.
This is planning failure, not inherent vice in the highway system. Braess' paradox is not a general condition.
Highways tend to be made the whipping boy for wider problems in the planning system. The reality, however, is that major highways are more heavily regulated than building development. In order to build a freeway on new location, an agency typically has to compile an environmental impact statement, which is a massive, year-long effort. However, developers do not have to compile an EIS before they plat out a new subdivision. Municipal planning agencies, as a general rule, also do not have to prepare an EIS before they designate large tracts of land as eligible for built development requiring the creation of highway infrastructure which itself requires an EIS. There is no general requirement to recycle brownfield land before developing on greenfield.
I would agree that in the US, in general, we tend to treat land like a consumable resource. But I am far from convinced that congestion pricing will contribute to an improvement in the situation.
This is a point I brought up in the I-80 discussion.
General (state, federal) tax money going toward mass transit discriminates against rural users as rural area by their nature are not viable for mass transit systems. But, as rural areas may have more lightly used roads, it may be a wash.
But, in any case, outside the cities the car is the only sane way to go. I didn't include walking and bicycling as they are not time efficient. The main shopping areas are 6-8 miles from my house or a 12-16 mile round trip.
It's about a 30 minute round trip by car (at most). A bike would take me 1 - 1 1/2 hours and I couldn't carry much back with me. Walking (4mph) would take 3 or 4 hours.
Now, can someone justify the 1/3 people can't use cars. I suspect that even if it is true, it includes children who are not allowed to drive and, generally, should be accompanied by an adult (driver and/or chaperon) in any case.
QuoteNow, can someone justify the 1/3 people can't use cars.
Most of America lives near a big city, and a lot of those people don't have money to have a car or it's a deal where you have a family of four with two driving-age people, but only one car. I could see that adding up to 1/3
Quote from: mightyace on September 24, 2010, 07:24:59 PM
...The main shopping areas are 6-8 miles from my house or a 12-16 mile round trip.
It's about a 30 minute round trip by car (at most). A bike would take me 1 - 1 1/2 hours and I couldn't carry much back with me. Walking (4mph) would take 3 or 4 hours.
And this summarizes best what is wrong with our current land use patterns. Something like a simple trip to get a gallon of milk is turned into a huge occasion that has to be planned as to when you should go. Why can't we plan cities so that a shopping trip is at most, an easy cycling distance of 3 miles? Why must we insist on the status quo?
And while you can't bring home a flat-screen on a bike, that's what a car and delivery is for. Plus, you can get a bike trailer or baskets that attach to the rear rack.
Quote
Now, can someone justify the 1/3 people can't use cars. I suspect that even if it is true, it includes children who are not allowed to drive and, generally, should be accompanied by an adult (driver and/or chaperon) in any case.
Actually, the 1/3 statement was about the people, under 16, seniors, and disabled, that can't drive a car for obvious reasons.
I think that the question has turned from Congestion Pricing in Cities and has focused on the failure of Suburban land planning. Maybe I have a bias because I live in a city, but it isn't our fault that some people choose to live in the suburbs and complain about the lack of public transit they have. Perhaps if people decided to live closer to where they work we wouldn't be in the situation we have now. We don't have the cash to try to develop a comprehensive public transit system that exists in Europe because for the most part our country is a bit to big to try to connect properly. I could envision something along the lines of high-speed rail in the Midwest that connects to a upgraded Northeastern network and then something for the West and I suppose the South, but that's besides the major point.
I don't think that we can address the concept of congestion pricing in this country without discussing the failure of Public Transit for the most part in this country. I that it would make no since to charge for someone to drive into the city without having a alternative (public transit).
Quote from: Zmapper on September 24, 2010, 08:28:57 PM
And this summarizes best what is wrong with our current land use patterns. Something like a simple trip to get a gallon of milk is turned into a huge occasion that has to be planned as to when you should go. Why can't we plan cities so that a shopping trip is at most, an easy cycling distance of 3 miles?
In my case, that argument does not apply as I live in a
RURAL area six miles outside of the nearest town. Adding shopping closer to me would
ADD to sprawl.
And before anyone asks if I'm confusing suburban and rural, I often can hear cows mooing from my house and there are horse farms along the road I live.
Quote from: Zmapper on September 24, 2010, 08:28:57 PM
Actually, the 1/3 statement was about the people, under 16, seniors, and disabled, that can't drive a car for obvious reasons.
IMHO, including under driving age inflates the numbers artificially as minors do not usually have the same freedom of movement as adults.
Quote from: mightyace on September 24, 2010, 09:21:03 PMIMHO, including under driving age inflates the numbers artificially as minors do not usually have the same freedom of movement as adults.
Well that's exactly the point that children don't have the same freedom of movement, because they can't drive. It's true that including toddlers is perhaps a bit unfair, but in any place that's relatively walkable most kids can start to go places on their own at about age 5 or 6, even if that's just to go to school. By age 8 to 10 they're usually able to at least go to the convenience store to buy a candy bar or something. Of course if they can't walk or ride their bike, they're pretty much stuck being chauffeured around until they're 16 or 17. For a kid, that's a LONG time to be out of the loop of society.
I totally agree with all the sentiments that there's been a huge failure in planning over the last 60+ years. It's an odd situation that's very haphazard on the one hand (in that there's very little regional-level planning going on at all, it's just reactionary for the most part) and very strictly codified and enforced through law on the other hand (by rigid euclidean land use zoning restrictions and traffic management requirements).
The suburbs are an example of the hyper-specialization of nearly all the industries involved in it. The planning commission takes care of enforcing the zoning rules, the traffic engineer takes care of the roads, the urban forester takes care of the trees, the civil engineer does the sewer system, the mall developer takes care of the mall, the commercial developer does the strip malls, the office developer does the office parks, the apartment developer does his thing, the townhouse developer does theirs, the high-end housing developer does his development, and the spec developer does his development. None of them really talk to each other, so everything is set apart in their own little zone with little integration. It's no wonder we have congestion issues that can be worse in the suburbs than in the city. The suburbs have all the ingredients of a city (housing, shops, offices, factories, schools, etc.) but they're sitting on the shelf uncooked, unable to be synthesized into something greater.
mightyace, I do apologize for misreading that statement as though you lived in a suburban housing development, my bad.
[
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 24, 2010, 09:17:01 PM
I think that the question has turned from Congestion Pricing in Cities and has focused on the failure of Suburban land planning. Maybe I have a bias because I live in a city, but it isn't our fault that some people choose to live in the suburbs and complain about the lack of public transit they have.
If suburbs are a failure, then why are they doing so well? People who live in suburbs should forget about public transit unless they live near a busy corridor or dense node.
As much as people like to say "urban density is THE BEST, GUYS" I think such thinking simply doesn't take human nature into account. People like to live in the suburbs because they like having a bit of land surrounding their house, and don't like having their neighbors right up their ass all the time. People don't like having to hear what their neighbors are up to or having to worry about their neighbors hearing them. Unfortunately, that lends itself to more of a suburban setup than a dense urban environment.
If you own a single-family dwelling, you can have people over whenever you want, you can have as many pets as is feasible, you can modify the house however you see fit, you can practice musical instruments at two in the morning, run the washer and dryer at four in the morning, or whatever. Most of these you cannot do in multiple-tenant housing. Most people consider having the freedom to do as they please a better deal than being able to have a quick walk down the street to get a gallon of milk.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 25, 2010, 12:33:31 AMAs much as people like to say "urban density is THE BEST, GUYS" I think such thinking simply doesn't take human nature into account. People like to live in the suburbs because they like having a bit of land surrounding their house, and don't like having their neighbors right up their ass all the time. People don't like having to hear what their neighbors are up to or having to worry about their neighbors hearing them. Unfortunately, that lends itself to more of a suburban setup than a dense urban environment.
I have been on both sides of the fence, so my perspective is a little different. There are some respects in which suburban housing development can be a time and money pit. Yes, you get your own bit of green space with some visual and aural insulation from your neighbors, but you also have to take responsibility for your own building and grounds maintenance. In the case of my parents, that means a weekly houseclean (including laundry, bathrooms, and a quick carpet vacuuming) and a weekly lawn mowing from mid-spring to late autumn. In practice the freedom to rehearse with a musical instrument, do laundry, etc. in the small hours of the morning does not mean much if you are not going to be awake during those times anyway (my parents' sleeping hours are from 11 PM to 6 AM for my father, and from 10 PM to 7 AM for my mother, and as I have gotten older I have become less interested in staying up until 2 AM or even later). In recent, post-1980 developments (not my parents' situation since their house was built in 1979), you also have a homeowners' association looking over your shoulder with regard to things like lawn maintenance, exterior appearance of your house, behavior of your children in the open air, etc. Many homeowners' associations are in fact totalitarian dictatorships backed up by contract law and financed by mandatory contributions.
On the other hand, if you live in housing in multiple occupancy, the maintenance tasks tend to be delegated or contracted out to people who do them on a day-to-day basis. Multiple occupancy by itself does not have to imply rental housing: it could be a condominium, co-operative, etc. The standard of interior furnishings and noise insulation can also be quite high. The building itself can be situated on its own green space and be located near parks. This is actually a common model of suburban development in European countries like Switzerland. We do not copy it on a large scale in the US except in certain regions, but even in cheap-land areas like the Plains states, "patio homes"--where individual SFRs are on relatively small pieces of land but all building and grounds maintenance is contracted out--are becoming very popular.
QuoteMost people consider having the freedom to do as they please a better deal than being able to have a quick walk down the street to get a gallon of milk.
I tend to feel the "walkable neighborhood" issue is a bit of a red herring. I accept that there may be areas or regions in the US outside of Wichita where irrationality in planning results in extreme dependence on the car for basic errands like going to school, buying groceries, etc. But in Wichita itself the planning model in use for decades assumed a basic level of commercial development at mile-road intersections, so while street layout, parking lot provision, etc. are quite car-friendly, it is still easy to walk to a grocery store for basic errands. If I want to go to Dillons for milk, I can do that on foot, and the journey would not take much longer than a comparable trip in an European suburb. Typical lot sizes in residential subdivisions in Wichita are not that much larger than in Europe and did not change much from 1945 to about 1980.
The real reason shopping on foot is considered an oddball thing in Wichita, while shopping by car is not, is that the car is marginally more convenient (journey time to nearest mile road intersection is usually less, though not by much in absolute time spent in transit) and allows chaining of errands. The European way of doing things can have significant time penalties and is fundamentally driven by land site values which are far higher than in most parts of the US.
Quote from: Zmapper on September 23, 2010, 10:16:25 PM
Is bicycling or walking included in that ALL statement of yours? Last time I checked, they are not included in any congestion pricing system
Speed of person walking briskly: 3 mph
Speed of person riding bike briskly: 25 mph
Speed of person driving car on freeway: 70 mph
...and you start to see the problem with saying "walk or bike instead of driving". Time constraints make those modes impractical for anything other than short trips.
QuotePeople do not pollute.
Yes we do. Every time you exhale, you're contributing to your carbon footprint. And being more physically active (such as by walking or biking instead of sitting in a car or on a train) speeds up your rate of emissions.
Quote from: Zmapper on September 23, 2010, 11:45:29 PM
The car is only faster because we skewed our transport network towards cars.
I don't see how. Consider the following scenario: there's a freeway and a rail line running parallel to each other. You both and live and work near an interchange and a station on each. So long as there is no congestion, it will be faster to use the freeway because 1) the train will make other stops along the way while you driving your car will not, and 2) you can just get in your car and go where as if you went to take the train you'd have to wait at the station for it to come.
QuoteAnd a cleaner car {...} still has the same stress
Stress? What strees? Driving is fun. :) Only stress comes from delays which, by the way, all modes of mass transit are also vulnerable to.
QuoteI'll also add that cars kill 33,000 people each year. Equivalent to a Hiroshima bomb going off every 1.5 years! How many do bikes and trains kill each year? Probably not even 1/10 of 33,000.
There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.
Of course cars kill a lot more people. People use cars a lot more! I'll also point out that that statistic includes pedestrians and cyclists getting hit by cars - I call that a hazard of walking/biking, not a hazard of driving.
I don't see anything wrong with the suburban lifestyle, nor with people owning cars.
That said, I feel like the future of commuting is in multi-modal transportation. With a downtown core and suburban housing, cars really aren't very practical for the entire journey.
To me, it seems like the future is people getting in their cars, driving to a rail station out in the suburbs with massive parking lots, and then boarding commuter trains that run every 20-30 minutes that head into downtown.
Using transit to get from front door to front door is hugely inefficient, but I don't see a lot of time loss in driving to a rail station and taking a train into downtown where offices are likely within easy walking distance.
The idea that we have to do all one or all another in a journey is hugely flawed. There's no reason we can't use cars to get to the rail (as opposed to local bus or whatever), and then rail to a downtown core.
Quote from: Landshark
If suburbs are a failure, then why are they doing so well? People who live in suburbs should forget about public transit unless they live near a busy corridor or dense node.
They are doing so well because that is about the only place to live thanks to Zoning Code.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 25, 2010, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: Zmapper on September 23, 2010, 10:16:25 PM
Is bicycling or walking included in that ALL statement of yours? Last time I checked, they are not included in any congestion pricing system
Speed of person walking briskly: 3 mph
Speed of person riding bike briskly: 25 mph
Speed of person driving car on freeway: 70 mph
...and you start to see the problem with saying "walk or bike instead of driving". Time constraints make those modes impractical for anything other than short trips.
And in normal city traffic it is more like this:
Walker: 3 mph
Cyclist: 12 mph
Driver: 12 mph
This also excludes parking and accessing your destination.
Quote
QuotePeople do not pollute.
Yes we do. Every time you exhale, you're contributing to your carbon footprint. And being more physically active (such as by walking or biking instead of sitting in a car or on a train) speeds up your rate of emissions.
Ok,
technically we do... I'll give that to you. But the health benefits also need to be considered.
Quote
Quote from: Zmapper on September 23, 2010, 11:45:29 PM
The car is only faster because we skewed our transport network towards cars.
I don't see how. Consider the following scenario: there's a freeway and a rail line running parallel to each other. You both and live and work near an interchange and a station on each. So long as there is no congestion, it will be faster to use the freeway because 1) the train will make other stops along the way while you driving your car will not, and 2) you can just get in your car and go where as if you went to take the train you'd have to wait at the station for it to come.
As long as there is no congestion that is true. But, the train allows one to get work done and not have to worry about always having to focus on the road.
Quote
QuoteAnd a cleaner car {...} still has the same stress
Stress? What strees{sic}? Driving is fun. :) Only stress comes from delays which, by the way, all modes of mass transit are also vulnerable to.
Driving is fun until you hit traffic or your car breaks down.
Quote
QuoteI'll also add that cars kill 33,000 people each year. Equivalent to a Hiroshima bomb going off every 1.5 years! How many do bikes and trains kill each year? Probably not even 1/10 of 33,000.
There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics. Of course cars kill a lot more people. People use cars a lot more! I'll also point out that that statistic includes pedestrians and cyclists getting hit by cars - I call that a hazard of walking/biking, not a hazard of driving.
No luck finding killed/million people. :banghead:
Quote from: Zmapper on September 23, 2010, 11:45:29 PMI'll also add that cars kill 33,000 people each year. Equivalent to a Hiroshima bomb going off every 1.5 years!
Factcheck time. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_Hiroshima#Post-attack_casualties), the Hiroshima bomb is estimated to have killed 70,000 people more or less immediately, with total deaths at the end of 1945 ranging from 90,000 to 166,000 due to radiation exposure, burns, unavailability of medical care due to destroyed infrastructure, etc.
I thought it killed 40,000 people. Wow, is the History Channel ever wrong. :pan:
It was Nagasaki that had the 40,000 figure (for immediate deaths), apparently because it was partially evacuated in response to an earlier raid. Either way, the loss of life (in both bombings and on highways worldwide) is immense.
Quote from: Zmapper on September 25, 2010, 12:53:23 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 25, 2010, 11:59:13 AM
Speed of person walking briskly: 3 mph
Speed of person riding bike briskly: 25 mph
Speed of person driving car on freeway: 70 mph
And in normal city traffic it is more like this:
Walker: 3 mph
Cyclist: 12 mph
Driver: 12 mph
This also excludes parking and accessing your destination.
Well, yes, using driving as a means to get around any large downtown is silly. A good city will be walkable, any large one should have some sort of subway system for going further. But often driving is the best means to get into the city from elsewhere. Especially if you're a group of several people - paying to park one car is cheaper than paying for 3 or 4 round trip train tickets even in Manhattan.
On that note... the general argument in favor congestion pricing for New York is to give transit a reliable dedicated revenue stream. I can live with that. It's not the best option for budget balancing, but unfortunately the MTA can't and doesn't want to do what it
should do (cut all the bloated wages and benefits of its union labor). So we're stuck with finding ways to raise extra money.
We don't need any sort of complicated scheme like what London has with delineating a CBD and putting up cameras everywhere to nab people entering and travelling within it, though. Manhattan is conveniently located on an island, just toll all the bridges onto and off of it one-way inbound and be done with it. Only exception would be the Alexander Hamilton Bridge - traffic just passing through to the GWB shouldn't be subject to a fee targeted at traffic entering the city, so toll the southbound offramp at exit 1A instead. Vary the toll by hour if you wish.
At the very least, we fix the current scheme where PANYNJ and MTA bridges are tolled but NYCDOT bridges are not, which makes no practical sense.
A quick entrance to this discussion.
I also don't see anything wrong with the suburban lifestyle, or car ownership. The suburbs were a great place for me to live when I was less than 13 (or so) years old, and likely will be when I'm older as well. Right now (at 23), I am not so interested, but people should be free to choose where they want to live - and deal with the consequences.
Quote from: corco on September 25, 2010, 12:33:03 PM
To me, it seems like the future is people getting in their cars, driving to a rail station out in the suburbs with massive parking lots, and then boarding commuter trains that run every 20-30 minutes that head into downtown.
This is already happening. Parking spots at Metro North, NJ Transit, and LIRR stations in the NYC area are in incredibly high demand.
As for congestion pricing, I am in favor. Ultimately, people who choose to live far away from their jobs need to live with the consequences of that decision. There is a tradeoff involved if you're looking for more space and perhaps a quieter place of residence. In cities such as NYC, Boston, and San Francisco, the urban downtown traffic is so bad that the street grid is virtually unusable for many hours of the day. This is the case even though the driving conditions are bad enough to deter a good portion of the population from driving their own cars in, due to driver timidity, inconvenience and cost of parking, traffic delays, etc. The street grid is also needed for the residents of these areas, and it is their priorities that matter most, as it is their primary place of residence. In these areas, mass transit and bikes are much more efficient at moving people, so policy should be made to promote this efficiency. The idea is to charge for private vehicle access, in an effort to encourage people to use less costly (and more efficient) mass transit instead, untangling the roads for necessary private vehicle use, local residents, deliveries, and emergencies. The street grid cannot possibly add capacity in these areas - there is simply no room. In areas such as lower and midtown Manhattan, downtown Boston, Chicago Loop, San Francisco, etc., I believe congestion pricing can help move people faster, and the extra charge for people who drive in is a small price to pay for people who want and can afford more space in a suburban setting.
Nobody drives in New York, there's too much traffic.
I may sound a bit anti-suburb, and to a certain extent I am. Just because you happen to live in a city doesn't mean that you have to live in a high rise or some high occupancy dwelling, I live in the city in a single family home and I have grass and two trees. I suppose to a certain extent that in many cities, such as NYC or LA, or even DC, that it is sometimes cheaper to live in the suburbs (in some cases) the outer suburbs due to real estate prices, but at least in those cities, the transportation system is workable and is a alternative to driving (especially in that traffic)
For the rest of the country (excluding Chicago), it's different. Many other metro areas aren't known for their comprehensive transport systems, such as Metro, WMATA and the MTA. People shouldn't be penalised for having no alternative but to drive into cities.
I suppose, that I am anti-congestion charging, because it penalises residents of the city that drive, and happen to live in the area. I wouldn't mind charging suburban drivers, but I think that tolling of major routes in the city could do that and that system has been working (although more people should use EZPass). I just hope that we try to make Public Transit more doable and a better alternative to drivers. Until that is done, congestion charging should be off the table.
Quotebecause it penalises residents of the city that drive
That would be pretty easy to circumvent- it would be completely legal to say "if you have proof of residency in that area, you don't pay"- and I'd certainly think that would be a good idea.
Well it brings up an inherent issue with congestion pricing in that it can be very difficult to implement and manage properly. In a situation like New York City where most of the congestion problems are caused by people driving into Manhattan from New Jersey, Staten Island, Brooklyn, or Yonkers, it's easy because the access routes are all via bridges and tunnels that naturally funnel/choke the traffic. There's limited access points, most of which are already tolled, so it's easy to implement congestion pricing in that instance.
The situation starts to get much more difficult when there aren't those natural choke points. In London where they had to create this nebulous downtown area and track cars by license plates at many many points of entry is a pretty over-the-top solution. In a city without natural barriers to entry, the next logical solution would seem to be to implement congestion pricing on the major highways, with toll booths or a simpler camera system that is only on those major arteries. That then creates a problem of people overwhelming the local street grid in order to avoid the charge though.
I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that just because you live within the congested area that it means you should be immune to congestion pricing. If you drive on that congested road you're still adding to the problem, after all. Also, living within the city means you should have more options than driving anyway, and even if you don't, the funds from congestion pricing should be used to build more of those alternatives. It's an interesting idea though that say a city vehicle sticker or something would give you a pass, and it would certainly fix the issue say of someone who lives just outside the zone and works just inside the zone, but still nowhere near the center. Making that person pay the same as someone else who's driving all the way through isn't really fair.
I also don't buy the argument that people who don't have any choice but to drive shouldn't be penalized. First, I don't really consider paying a more fair price for utilizing a resource to be penalizing. Sure people don't like it when things like that are changed, but it prevents misuse of the resource. There's several other situations where this has been done. Many single-family homes in Chicago don't have water meters for instance. Their bill is calculated on the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Because of this however, their yards are always green as can be, and few people bother with water saving toilets or shower heads. When buildings are renovated or new houses built, they have water meters. Are they being penalized? They don't have any alternative but to have water, but they still need to pay for it. The same is true for electricity, natural gas or heating oil, and telephone. These are all pretty much essential services, yet we don't have any qualms about paying for what we use rather than a lump sum that allows for unlimited use. The poor still get those utilities, they're just a lot more careful to make sure they don't squander them. Internet service is about the only thing that's (mostly) unlimited, and the main reason for that is because bandwidth use is so intangible and inexpensive to begin with. Roads however are very tangible and very expensive too.
So what does all this mean? Well, I think the main part is that in cities with a well-connected road network that don't have many natural barriers, congestion pricing in the form of tolls (access control) is probably not particularly viable. There might be other methods however that aren't so direct. One, which has been mentioned briefly before, is parking prices. This gets a bit messy because there's a lot of different factors in play, but I'll try to be brief. For one thing there's city-owned lots and on-street parking. These are usually priced way below their actual value (market rate) in the hopes of attracting more drivers, which only serves to exacerbate the traffic problem. It also means that (just like the congested roads) they are in high demand because the low prices are undercutting the alternatives of private lots and garages. Raising parking meter prices is a political hot potato, but it's something that really needs to be done.
Another component that's much more insidious is the minimum parking requirements in zoning codes. In many cases they're grossly oversized, since they're planned for the worst case (day after Thanksgiving shopping) scenario. This also means that even in some downtown areas, while road capacity is stretched to the limit, there's a glut of parking. By better pricing parking facilities to reflect actual market demand, and not forcing people to build lots and garages if they don't want to, the limited parking supply and higher cost will naturally limit driving as well. Parking won't go away of course, nor will it get to be so expensive that nobody will use it, since at that point private operators will build more garages, but it won't be artificially cheap either.
Again, this will encourage more rational use of the cars we do have by getting more people to carpool, combine trips, or look more carefully at telecommuting. It will also encourage more compact cars or motorcycles/mopeds, since they can have lower parking costs. It will encourage more use and construction of better public transit too. The argument that "oh my boss won't let us telecommute" or "I don't have the flexibility to work alternate hours" or "public transit isn't good enough to serve where I live" are all things that can and do change. As it is, there's no reason for bosses to allow flexibility with hours or to encourage telecommuting, because driving and parking is so cheap that it shouldn't matter. That's the same reason most cities in the US don't have any meaningful public transit. It's not that they don't have the density to support it (true most post-war suburbs don't, but most pre-war suburbs and city areas do), but because driving and parking has been made so artificially cheap that it just can't compete. Also, people move a lot in this country, so it may come to a point where that house in the suburbs simply becomes too much of a liability and it makes more sense to move closer to work.
The whole issue of congestion pricing might end up being a moot point anyway. We could end up with permanent debilitating rises in oil prices that simply won't allow us to commute such long distances anymore. If that happens, not only does it get very expensive to drive cars so much, but also to build them (plastics, tires, and paint become a lot more expensive too, as does everything else that needs to be shipped, whether by truck boat train or air). Keeping the roads maintained gets more expensive because high oil prices means higher asphalt prices too, as well as the higher costs in mining the aggregate to make it and concrete, plus to transport it. All that will cause shifts in how and where we live, and it would reduce congestion a lot. The big question is will we be able to afford to rebuild all the public transit systems and long-distance rail that we dismantled in the mid 20th century?
(I guess that wasn't so brief after all.)
That last post, especially with its comparison to restricted parking, made me think of how I personally would react to a congestion charge, and I realized that it would mean that I simply wouldn't go into the charge zone. I'm not going to try and carpool/take the bus into downtown. I'll just conduct my business somewhere where it's free to drive. If I have to pay a $10 surcharge (or whatever) to get at Crabtown, but nothing to get to Red Lobster, hell, why not save the $10 and eat at Red Lobster? Yeah, Crabtown's better, but it's already more expensive without having to pay to get into downtown. So what you end up doing is halting the economic rebound a lot of downtowns (like Oklahoma City's) are currently experiencing.
Fair enough, and there certainly are people who would react that way. It's a bit different though when your job is downtown. Also, the fact that there is a congestion problem in the first place means that there's a lot of people who are trying to go there anyhow. Shifting some of that to other areas is not always be a bad thing.
Generally, the situation of "it's easier to do X in the suburbs so why should I go downtown for it?" is the kind of fight that downtowns can't win, congestion pricing or not. No downtown will EVER be able to compete with the suburbs on free and convenient parking access, so it's much better to play up the strengths of the city instead. Those would be walkability, good transit access, night life, diverse and local shops and restaurants, architecture, cultural institutions, and all manner of diverse and engaging activities.
Trying to make downtown attractive via ample parking simply doesn't work. People need to have a reason to go there first. If the whole area is full of parking lots, there's little left to actually go to. Parking lots (or empty lots in general) in urban areas markedly decrease pedestrian traffic along them, which only makes the problem worse. If there's real attractions (whether jobs, housing, shopping, or recreation), then people will find a way to get there no matter what. The most vibrant city centers have parking problems because all the space is being used for stuff people actually want to go to. Regardless of how full or empty the downtown is though, it's simply impossible to provide the amount of free and convenient parking you get in the suburbs, and any minor successes in that regard are very vulnerable to the next new mall built down the highway.
Cities have a choice. They can either have a vibrant downtown where everyone complains about parking, or they can have a dead downtown where everyone complains about parking.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 25, 2010, 11:59:13 AMQuote from: Zmapper on September 23, 2010, 11:45:29 PMThe car is only faster because we skewed our transport network towards cars.
I don't see how. Consider the following scenario: there's a freeway and a rail line running parallel to each other. You both and live and work near an interchange and a station on each. So long as there is no congestion, it will be faster to use the freeway because 1) the train will make other stops along the way while you driving your car will not, and 2) you can just get in your car and go where as if you went to take the train you'd have to wait at the station for it to come.
Apples and Oranges - a freeway isn't the equivalent of a suburban railway. Both have to be a non-stop service. Also Freeways are designed with high speeds in mind - in the UK we have railways that do 125mph, speed limited (and one that does 186mph) that are upgraded lines that are 150 years old. Some of 125mph railways are even unelectrified. If you can go twice as fast, you could even stop a couple of times and allow for bus/walking to a station, and/or the wait.
Not saying that rail is better, also not saying the other way - just saying you've not compared like for like.
Bringing it back on the main topic, congestion is self-regulating - no one wants to sit in traffic. Of course if there isn't an alternative option, that's not great, but for Manhattan, say, there's no reason why able-bodied people have to drive there - adding a congestion charge wouldn't reduce traffic - AFAICS, the London scheme just moved it about and most of the congestion in the first place was exempt vehicles (buses and black cabs). They've added more buses, and bendy-buses, and, while journey times have been reduced for motor transport inside the zone, they did a lot of playing about with the traffic signals and optimalised them, having not done so before.
Bendy-buses? That's so much more fun to say than articulated buses!
Though it's true nobody WANTS to sit in traffic, a huge number of people still do. Nobody wants to pay their utility bills either, but they still do. Even when there are alternatives, a lot of people choose to drive because of it's artificially low (real and perceived) cost. The only cost to them is the congestion itself, and if they're willing to pay for it in that way, they should be willing to pay real money to avoid it too. Time is money, after all.
That's the difficult part about road congestion, its unpredictability. You have to pad your schedule to account for it, which wastes time whether the road's congested or not. Chicago presents an interesting aspect of this. While driving to the Loop from the suburbs on one of the expressways is faster than taking Metra (the long-distance commuter rail), that's only true when the expressway is free-flowing. What was a 35 or 40 minute drive can easily get close to an hour, at which point the 50 minute train ride, which is always 50 minutes no matter what, looks a lot more appealing. You can also do stuff on the train that you'd have to take extra time out of your day to do otherwise, whether it's extra work or just reading the newspaper. The train could never really compete with the cost of gas alone (though if you use the $0.50-55 total cost per mile of driving it wins there). Even so, woe is you if you try to park in the Chicago Loop on a weekday. The cost of a round-trip train ticket from a far-flung suburb will get you maybe an hour in a garage, if you're lucky.
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 25, 2010, 04:42:19 PM
Nobody drives in New York, there's too much traffic.
If nobody was driving, there would be no traffic, so this statement is contradictatory.
Quote from: deanej on September 26, 2010, 01:05:14 PM
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 25, 2010, 04:42:19 PM
Nobody drives in New York, there's too much traffic.
If nobody was driving, there would be no traffic, so this statement is contradictatory.
Heh. Glad to know I'm not the only one who had that thought. :-D
You do realize it's a joke, right? There is an element of truth to it though, just not in absolute terms.
Quote from: deanej on September 26, 2010, 01:05:14 PM
Quote from: jjakucyk on September 25, 2010, 04:42:19 PM
Nobody drives in New York, there's too much traffic.
If nobody was driving, there would be no traffic, so this statement is contradictatory.
You're not a Yogi Berra fan, are you.