News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Congestion Pricing

Started by Zmapper, September 21, 2010, 09:01:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tarkus

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)


J N Winkler

#51
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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

jjakucyk

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.

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

mightyace

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.
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

corco

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

Zmapper

#56
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.

iwishiwascanadian

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). 

mightyace

#58
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.
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

jjakucyk

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.

Zmapper

mightyace, I do apologize for misreading that statement as though you lived in a suburban housing development, my bad.

Landshark

[
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. 

Scott5114

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.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Duke87

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.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

corco

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.

Zmapper

#66
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:

J N Winkler

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, 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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Zmapper

I thought it killed 40,000 people. Wow, is the History Channel ever wrong.  :pan:

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Duke87

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.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

citrus

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.

jjakucyk

Nobody drives in New York, there's too much traffic.

iwishiwascanadian

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. 

corco

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.