1. IrvingSnodgrass - Aug. 4, 1999 - 8:53 AM PT
Here is the post which originally suggested this thread, by way of introduction:
25164. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 7:09 AM PT
Irv,
I've been trying to press FTC for how the libertarians would resolve urban transit issues in this country. As most of us know, the post WWII development patterns in this country, especially in the Sunbelt, have been heavily subsidized in favor of the automobile. Attempts to develop mass transit systems seem doomed by the double whammy of low density development and NIMBY-ers who are more afraid of a light rail line than they are of an eight-lane freeway.
Urban growth and transit, like Al Gore or not, will be an increasingly important issue in the coming decades as more and more Americans come to realize that there is a practical limit on how much space we can devour and how much time people can practically spend in an automobile without losing their sanity.
Following FTC's suggestion, I am putting forth the idea that we have a thread on the subject, sometime in the near future.
A fun link to start with might be something like this site dedicated to haters of the Long Island RR.
2. benear - Aug. 4, 1999 - 9:05 AM PT
Nowhere is it better illustrated than here in Atlanta. MARTA is clean, safe and pretty efficient. Yet it is practically empty while people sit in endless 8 and 10 lane parking lots twice a day. The suburban counties refuse to allow MARTA to extend its lines into their communities. It is just flat irrational. But that's human behavior for you.
Things are bound to change, however. The current madness cannot sustain itself forever. Atlanta is out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. We are in danger of losing all Federal highway funds. Just this spring a regional transportation authority was created. The extension of MARTA is inevitable. Yet the planning for an outer perimeter also continues apace.
3. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
Well, gosh, now that I've started this, I'll have to excuse myself from contributing very much until after tomorrow.
What's ironic about cities such as Atlanta losing federal hwy funds is that it was those very funds that subsidized the urban sprawl that's causing so many problems, nowadays. By using fed funds to build highways farther and farther away from urban centers, the real costs of suburban development has been externalized onto taxpayers. In other words, when you buy a house out in a new suburban development, you're not paying the real cost of that house, because the money for infrastructure has come from somewhere else. This has created a special sort of madness.
From what I have read, Portland, Oregon, is the only city in the country that has dealt with the issue rationally. Do any Fraygrants live there? What do they have to say about it?
4. judithathome - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:20 AM PT
Here in my part of the country, resistance to urban transportation is strong. The only thing linking communities with rail is an excursion train on which only the fairly well-to-do can afford to take their visiting friends to show off out little trainlet.
5. Ronski - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
I suppose it would be all too predictable if I suggested privatization of mass transit, wouldn't it?
And the defunding of federal highway projects? Same?
6. benear - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:57 AM PT
The two would have to be done simultaneously. Mass Transit is not competitive or profitable in competition with the massively subsidized highway system.
The problem here is self-perpetuating and self-resolving (?) at the same time. The in-town neighborhoods are experiencing skyrocketing real estate prices. Bill Campbell, the Mayor of Atlanta was actually gloating not too long ago that people are realizing how miserable commutes are making life in the suburbs untenable. People are moving back into the city.
Typical of what is happening is that when an old lady dies in Morningside, the realtors go in, strip all the carpet out to show the hardwood floors then put a 2-3 bedroom, bath and a half house circa 1950's electric and plumbing and circa 1970's decoration on the market for $250,000. Buyers snap them up then go in and update the kitchens and baths, usually putting another $50K to $100K into them. It is insane. $300 to $350K for a 2 bedroom bath and a half.
In the most desirable close in neighborhoods, single family houses cannot be found for less than $250,000 no matter what their condition. So while many people are moving back in, relieving some of the strain on the freeways, many others are either priced out of the market to begin with or are leaving in order to reap huge profits on their in-town houses. In fact, in those neighborhoods, it is rapidly becoming impossible to find anything decent for under $400K.
7. benear - Aug. 4, 1999 - 11:02 AM PT
Of course, anyone trying to navigate the streets of Buckhead on a Friday evening is realizing this is not just a suburban commute to urban problem.
The City of Atlanta is currently on track to totally shatter all previous records for the number of building permits issued in a year.
8. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 12:11 PM PT
Ronski,
Your ideas are exactly what we want to hear on this thread. But to say "privatize all transit" is a cop-out. I'm interested in hearing at least the basic steps of how it would be done. For example, how would you prevent public transit from being monopolized (and thus creating the very problem you set out to solve) by private entities?
9. katewrath - Aug. 4, 1999 - 12:13 PM PT
I don't own a car, so obviously I've heavily bought into the idea of public transportation. A big part of this goes back to my budding adulthood in NYC. The things the MTA does well include:
*scraping the cars clean daily.
*keeping the transit police extremely visible on and off trains
*running the trains 24 hours a day
*building lines that, for the most part, run fairly quietly through fairly cool underground stations.
*well-reasoned transit pass-pricing, including discounting.
As a result, you see a lot of different people on public transportation at all times of the day and night, including individuals and families who could have driven but didn't want to bother with the traffic and hassle. Which means the trains are that much safer, and that much better funded because of the high usage.
10. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 12:15 PM PT
Re: Message #6
Part of the problem is that there are really so few choices for housing in a typical Sun-belt city. There is especially a lack of mixed use neighborhoods. This is due to zoning laws which try to minimize density in order to elevate property values. The long term effects, though, seem untenable.
11. katewrath - Aug. 4, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT
The Paris Metro actually improves on almost all of these qualities (for example, there's an entrance to the Louvre through the metro station that's always less busy than the above ground entrance--a brilliant incentive for people to use public transportation.) It runs on a combo of metal wheels and rubber tires for an eerily quiet-running train and fantastic access to the airports (while NYC has great public transit access only to JFK, less-great access to LAG and private-only access to Newark).
Chicago is a pigfuck. Noisy, badly planned, and the discount/pass-pricing scheme appears to have been concieved by intoxicated monkeys. Crime is a continual threat; no one in my socio-economic category would go near it with a ten-foot-pole after 9:30 at night unless a bunch of them were coming home from a Cubs game. Even in ideal situations, the only people who really use it are the poor and the handful of people who work at one end and live at the other (which, owing to the tremendously bad planning, is a state of affairs you have to deliberately set out to arrange by limiting yourself to a small handful of neighborhoods when apartment or house hunting, depending on where you work, b/c transferring lines would be a colassal waste of time.)
Needless to say, the housing and highway situation in Chicago closely mirrors the scene in Atlanta.
12. benear - Aug. 4, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
kate: I lived in Chicago from 85 to 87. I found the busses (on the heavily traveled routes - Clark, Broadway, Halstead, Belmont, Addison etc. were very safe late into the evening. Wise people did stay off the El after dark.
And very very late, especially on cold nights, cabs were frequent, easy and cheap.
I loved the options. My car remained parked for months on end. I lived in Andersonville but worked in Elmhurst. So I also rode the commuter trains, in reverse. Never a problem finding a seat.
13. katewrath - Aug. 4, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
B: I agree that the buses are a good call, almost anytime of the day or night, although you'll have to wait for one on a street corner, possibly for a very long time.
My chief issue with buses is that they, like cabs and cars, are subject to the forces of traffic, while subways/Els can run unaffected by these pressures. I recognize that it's basically impossible to lay down rail-based transit, just because a population shift has created a (possibly temporary) demand for a specific route, so for that reason, buses are an excellent auxillary transit solution.
Longtime Fraygrants will tell you that I have this bizarre theory about how cars break down individual's ability to deal with each other and eventually damage society as a whole. Therefore, I like to see people travelling in large, flock-like groups, such as you see with well-planned train lines. Buses, as I say, because of their size, don't work as well for this. And in Chicago winters, you will often see the exact "us-against-them" breakdown I describe, where passengers will refuse to move to the back or squeeze together to make room for the people waiting on the street, and bus after bus will pass, leaving the folks on the street freezing cold and pretty hostile towards their fellow man. (Royko wrote about this when I was in knee socks, so it's a situation that's been around for 15 years at least.)
14. benear - Aug. 4, 1999 - 1:03 PM PT
Does the Paris Metro still stop service in the early morning hours? When I was last there (85) the last train was at 12:30 am and the first one was at 5:30 am. The bars and clubs closed at 2 or 3 so it was pretty inconvenient.
15. jonesatlaw - Aug. 4, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
Urban transit systems are tightly intertwined with urban development. In the west, many of the cities grew substantially after the end of the street car era. They were shaped by freeways, and are not friendly to walking, or to mass transit. Many eastern cities never gave up mass transit. No solution to western cities will be possible without adjustments to the pattern of development as well. So long as you have strip development, mass transit will suck.
16. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 1:52 PM PT
People who live in cities forget the differences between urban and suburban mass transit. In the city, there's a subway stop everywhere, and they stop often. Not so out in the suburbs, even if they have mass transit. No, it's every hour on the hour except during rush hours, and it only goes in a straight line north/south or east/west, and unless where you want to go is right off the line, you have to take that demon bus. And it takes far longer.
So--suburban mass transit is inflexible and time consuming. As a result, not many people want to use it. The majority of those who do are those who can't drive or don't own a car because of restrictions of some sort--in other words, there's a lot of weird folks that take the train or (worse) the bus. Inflexible, time-consuming, risk of rilly rilly bad company. Competing against the one place in the world where you can have time to yourself, play the radio as loud as you want, and run errands at lunch.
Ain't ever going to happen unless you make suburban mass transit systems as flexible and quick as urban ones. Which ain't ever going to happen either. Fullstop.
I do believe that this is something similar to Jones point, were I able to understand it.
17. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
You know, I just read the origination of this discussion in Politics, and I need to qualify my statement a bit. Given the current methods of developing mass transit systems for the suburbs, it ain't going to happen. I haven't really thought about privatization; however, my first instinct says that the havoc it would wreak on the communities to build a transit system would make it unlikely to ever get accepted.
I should also mention that suburban mass transit systems that take all suburbans up into the City and then take them back home at night work well for that limited purpose. But I am never sure that the money involved is worth it unless it can reach a wider range of people--in short, operate in the same way an urban transit system does.
18. katewrath - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
B: I forgot to mention that; Paris's one real drawback (ditto London's and Dublin's as well), is that public transit shuts down earlier than the city does.
Re: suburban public transit. There's no question that it's not well-funded (and consequently, not well-designed) enough to play the role that urban public transit does. Jones pretty much nails the reason for this, which I would rephrase thusly: The limited land resources of truly urban environments forces people to plan wisely. The unlimited land resources of other environments leads people to build without restrictions, short of economic considerations.
The end result: Most people in these areas drive a car every day to do things--getting to work, running lunchtime errands--that someone in an urban area could do by walking 5 minutes down the street to the bus stop/train stop/corner store.
(Wait, that almost sounded like I was complimenting Chicago. Well, tie me up and call me Susan, I did just compliment Chicago. I guess the ol' Silicon Prairie is finally growing on me.)
19. Raskolnikov - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
I can't imagine that the Twin Cities could create a mass transit system that I would take to work. I live in a suburb, and don't work in either downtown, so any mass transit route would require at least two transfers and a drive to a park and ride lot. Additionally, my day care is close to work, not home.
The day care problem could be taken care of, but not the suburban problem. Anywhere we moved closer to my job would add an equal amount of time onto my wife's commute, giving us no real traffic gain.
20. Raskolnikov - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:24 PM PT
The great European transit systems are also based in very densely populated cities. The Paris Metro stops almost every block. The London Underground stops about every third block. I don't think those frequent stops are at all economical in the more sprawlish American Cities.
The East coast seems to do it allright. The DC Metro is terrific, and the Philadelphia Transit system was passable.
21. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:34 PM PT
Well, all the good urban transit systems are in small (area wise), well-contained cities: New York, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia, SF.
What are the sprawly cities--LA, Dallas, Atlanta?
22. Ronski - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:34 PM PT
I want to give this issue more of the attention it deserves, but want to add here briefly that I agree with katewrath that NYC does something good with its subways, which is to run them 24 hours a day. Beyond that, it is a matter of personal opinion. Some New Yorkers, like katewrath, are fairly satisfied with the system. Others loathe it.
As for libertarian solutions to traffic and transit problems, they could not be discussed without a like debate on privatization of the roadways and streets on which gas-powered vehicles travel.
Libertarian solutions are generally based on restoring property rights, and diminishing the size of the commons, something that most municipal and other governments are not even thinking about, nor ever likely to.
Let's face it. The problem is overusage of our roads. Most roads are free, in essence, subsidized. Subsidization always results in overuse.
23. Ronski - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
(I should add here that the problem I'm addressing is the street traffic of major Eastern and West Coast cities and adjacent highways, which are nightmares during rush hour. Though there are other issues in this thread to talk about as well.)
24. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:40 PM PT
"As for libertarian solutions to traffic and transit problems, they could not be discussed without a like debate on privatization of the roadways and streets on which gas-powered vehicles travel."
Ronski, we need to cover all these topics, and more. My personal opinion, like yours, is that suburban development has been oversubsidized by free roads. Also, I think that architecture and zoning laws are very much part of the problem, and would have to be part of the solution.
25. Jenerator - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
The biggest problem for Dallas has been with its planning. The main highway through downtown Dallas was built in 1941. Already a growing city, the planning dept. for the C.O.D. had the bright idea of making central expressway (I-75) a whopping two lines on both sides. Had they planned ahead, we wouldn't have had to pay for the enormously expensive and lengthy expansion of the highway, which will make it only four lanes on both sides. Thus making it obsolete once again. I know this is probably boring to you all, but it is a real pain in the butt for me. You see, rather than buying up the existing right-of-way throughout the years, the C.O.D. approved for bisuness to build along side of the highway. Therefore, we have all had to wait while they have had to buy back one lot at a time for MILLIONS of dollars each. The expansion began in 1984, and they're barely half-way finished.
THINK AHEAD PEOPLE!!
THINK!! Growing city -- limited access --- better highways!!!
26. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
"Most roads are free, in essence, subsidized. Subsidization always results in overuse."
Well, don't we pay for them with taxes? State or local, registration, sales tax? I agree that we don't pay on a per usage basis. But if we did, conceivably someone who is poor might have to pay more than someone who is rich? (I am guessing my way through this, if you can't tell.) So surely it makes more sense to tax people based on income, ensuring that wealthier people pay more than poor people. This is an area where that quite frankly makes sense to me.
Besides, I can't see it as anything other than a serious economic hit to privatize all roads. I like the idea of a community funding a subway, but of course it woudn't make sense without other communities agreeing, and then you get to San Mateo County rejecting BART in about fifteen minutes.
27. FreetoChoose - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:45 PM PT
benear
“Nowhere is it better illustrated than here in Atlanta. MARTA is clean, safe and pretty efficient. Yet it is practically empty while people sit in endless 8 and 10 lane parking lots twice a day.”
I've taken MARTA most times when I go to Atlanta, but each time I mention it people act like I'm nuts.
“The suburban counties refuse to allow MARTA to extend its lines into their communities. It is just flat irrational.”
Probably more due to racism. Come to think of it, that's irrational, so maybe you were right after all.
28. Ronski - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:46 PM PT
Another problem is with the railroad commuter lines. They were designed to take people only into the city core. I live not too far from a train station, but would have to take two trains and a subway local to get where I work. This would take about three hours. By leaving very early, I can drive it in a hour and a half. I see no way of any mass transit system being an improvement on my driving my car, even though I curse the traffic daily. There would be less traffic on the highways, however, if it cost more to use them than it does now. (And it does cost a bit as is, but nothing good is free.)
29. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
Hey. I said that already about commuter lines only going into the city. Hrmph.
I see nothing good coming of making roads more expensive. People like me would pay it cheerfully, and it could hurt the poor. Although maybe someone will be innovative and start a shuttle. And a small percentage would start to carpool--that same small percentage that already drive in the diamond lane.
30. FreetoChoose - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:52 PM PT
“5. Ronski - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
I suppose it would be all too predictable if I suggested privatization of mass transit, wouldn't it?
And the defunding of federal highway projects? Same?
6. benear - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:57 AM PT
The two would have to be done simultaneously. Mass Transit is not competitive or profitable in competition with the massively subsidized highway system.”
Yep.
Privatization is worth talking about, but only if done simultaneously with elimination of highway subsidies.
31. Ronski - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:55 PM PT
Cal,
We'll talk more tomorrow. Certainly, in the U.S. today, most people accept the notion that it is fair for the rich to pay a higher share of taxes than the poor. So, using our graduated income tax, we make the rich pay more for the roads than the poor do. But it still is subsidization. It still conceals costs, and encourages use, or overuse. Add to that the inefficiencies of government-run road projects (to be fair, some jurisdictions are getting smarter about getting roadwork done more efficiently, usually by offering incentives to construction companies if they meet early deadlines, in other venues known as bribes), but there is still a built-in problem when the roads are "free." And when government raises tolls on the roads where it does charge for usage, people howl.
People expect not so much a free lunch, but one which costs less than it actually does, and that is not possible.
32. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:55 PM PT
Part of the problem is one of externalities. When we plow a freeway through an urban neighborhood, we sacrifice that neighborhood to subsidize people who choose to live farther away.
I live near the center of Miami (in a very nice neighborhood). Recently, the people of South Miami killed a light rail proposal because they figured it would degrade their property values, yet at the same time they would raise U.S. 1 (which is just five blocks from my house) into a freeway to make it easier for them to drive their cars downtown. This makes me mad, to say the least.
I tend to think that privatization, though it would be impossibly complicated, is at least in principle the way to go, because the cost of living in the outer suburbs right now is being externalized onto those who live closer to town. The noise and pollution caused by expressways certainly must have a detrimental effect on the health of children who live in the city. In that sense, CalGal, the poor are probably already paying more than the rich for transport services.
33. katewrath - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:56 PM PT
FTC posted:
"I've taken MARTA most times when I go to Atlanta, but each time I mention it people act like I'm nuts."
Not only that, but then people who've come to accept that owning and driving a car is the only way to get from place to place take that idea with them, no matter where they go.
I mentioned a "secret" entrance to the Louvre from the Metro a couple posts back. One of the reasons it's less used than the main entrance is that many American tourists wouldn't set foot one in a Metro station on the ground that they're not safe.
I can't help thinking that this is the fossil fuel version of the "Diet for a Growing Planet" argument. Vegetarians are often on omnivore's cases for eating animals that consume 6 to 15 times the nutrients they provide. Here, I'm struck by the realization that cummulatively, individual car owners must consume several times the resources used by public transportation passengers. But as with issues of diet, people like to own cars and that's never gonna change, unfortunately.
34. FreetoChoose - Aug. 4, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT
katewrath
“ (while NYC has great public transit access only to JFK, less-great access to LAG and private-only access to Newark).”
*Great* access to JFK? I don't think so. I took public transit to JFK a month or so ago. Fairly long subway ride out to middle of nowhere. Then need to catch a bus. No clear signs. I had to ask someone which bus to take. Then they want exact change. Bus stops at every corner. Almost 2 hours to the airport. This is not great.
“Chicago is a pigfuck. Noisy, badly planned, and the discount/pass-pricing scheme appears to have been concieved by intoxicated monkeys. Crime is a continual threat; no one in my socio-economic category would go near it with a ten-foot-pole after 9:30 at night unless a bunch of them were coming home from a Cubs game.”
I'm guessing you are referring to the el/subways, but not to the trains. I took the train every day for years, and thought it was a decent system. I've taken the subway from the airport to downtown a number of times. It wasn't horrible, just slow. I took it more as a statement; I can't honestly recommend that someone take the subway from the airport. To be fair, I never took the subway late at night, so I don't know what it's like, but I took trains after midnight, and the biggest danger is falling asleep and missing your stop.
35. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
Won't ever work, guys.
Besides, I think you are probably underestimating the intangible positives that arise from free access to roads. Flexibility, fluidity, the *pretense* of a protection against the wealthy always getting it their way.
More importantly--we're like this because we *want* to be. I freely tell you that the world you envision to reduce driving is ick. Flat out. The world Kate describes, where we're out of our cars and in some goddam subway train--ick.
Now, this is *not* a reason why it shouldn't be done. But my reaction represents the majority--and toss in a majority of those who piously say that they'd take public transit if they could (and I'm sure they only watch PBS, too).
This isn't one of those situations where the villain is big business or Da Gubmint. It's just....us.
Oh, wait. That's *always* my villain.
Hmm.
36. Ronski - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
Cal,
Yes, you did say that. Stop me before I blather again.
I would add that when suburban commuter lines were built, they were done so by private companies. These businesses then had to compete with the government's building of highways, and they started to lose money. Then they were taken over by government agencies (or public benefit authorities) themselves. So you have a lot of interference in the market place going on in transportation.
Now if Jade were still here, she/he would remind us that Hamilton won his battle with Jefferson over the building of public highways.
And I would ask if that really had proven such a good thing.
37. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:02 PM PT
35 was to Ronski and FTC--last one I read was 30 at the time I wrote it.
38. FreetoChoose - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:03 PM PT
I realize this is dangerously close to being off-topic, but my last post reminded me of a story I must relate.
A friend got on the train for home about 9 PM and fell asleep on the way home. He woke up two stops past his regular stop. No taxis at the train station, and the next train in the other direction was over an hour away. But there was a pizza place within walking distance. He hadn't eaten, so he walked there, ordered a pizza for delivery, and told them he was going along for the ride. Cost him less than a taxi, with less wait. I thought it was clever.
Let's see, if everyone remembers this, they will have one less reason for avoiding mass transit, so, yeah, it's on topic.
39. Ronski - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:03 PM PT
Cal,
The enemy is indeed us.
Government is the enabler.
40. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:03 PM PT
Kate,
I remember that Louvre stop. I didn't get to use it, though, cuz I was staying in a pension just two blocks away.
The explosion of the SUV craze, well, makes me crazy. Americans have no perspective as to how many resources they consume on a given day. Many others see us as a bunch of fat piglets, sleepily sucking on the Earth's teats.
I used MARTA the last time I was in Atlanta. I thought it was neat. Much cleaner than the Paris metro.
We actually have an above-ground metro here, and many people use it. But further development is hampered by a lack of funds, low density development, and worries about cost overruns from the last experience. A penny tax proposal was killed last week, one which would have funded a lot of projects for transit. Oh, well, I keep hoping that we'll find an answer.
41. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:04 PM PT
Really! About Hamilton beating out Jefferson on highways?
That's too cool. Proof again that Jefferson didn't have a clue.
42. FreetoChoose - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:07 PM PT
CalGal
What Ronski failed to make clear (or maybe he did, this thread is moving too fast for me) is that he was talking like an economist.
When he said free, he didn't mean that they aren't paid for by taxes, but the marginal use is free. Once you have paid your taxes (or even if you haven't), the use of any road other than a toll-road won't cost you anything for the use of the road. (OK, arguably a bit for the tax portion of the gas.)
43. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:11 PM PT
FTC,
No, actually, I got that.
44. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:20 PM PT
"In that sense, CalGal, the poor are probably already paying more than the rich for transport services."
Yes, but "in that sense" is always difficult to measure and once you go outside to *that* scope, someone else could probably find all the ways in which the well-off are paying, too. In the strictest sense of the word, payment for our roads is based on income, yes?
I don't see much way out of it other than re-engineering everything about all communities and cities from the ground up. Also not going to happen. Kate nailed it--it's not fair, but public transit users are vegetarians.
You ever see those movies or read books set somewhere in Europe where "hey, we have to ask Judy, she's got the car"?
Seriously, who the hell wants that? How much entrepreneurialism is stymied, how much flexibility is lost, in a world where a person's ability to move around and make job decisions is based on whether or not they can find a ride? You make roads expensive, people will eventually stop buying cars, and damn! we're England. Never mind the hit on the economy a cutback on automobile manufacturing would have.
Yes, the poor don't benefit as much from the roads as the middle-class and wealthy. (At least, I'm taking that as a given.) But everyone *can* benefit from them to the degree that they need to or want to, or have the ingenuity to try to. I think it makes sense for the government to subsidize highways.
I do think that there need to be stricter guidelines for community planning (including decisions about roads, transit, etc.), but I'm not sure how the states could mandate it.
45. katewrath - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
CG: I think my post 33 covers almost everything you say in post 35, with one notable suggestion:
"The world Kate describes, where we're out of our cars and in some goddam subway train--ick."
I'm not saying that cars are great, with their privacy, freedom, comfy seats, nice stereo systems and enormous social cachet. I would, after all, be wrong. Nearly a century of the automotive industry spending billions of dollars on design, marketing and advertising has seen to this, and not even Gandhi could resist the resulting temptations they've placed before us. And cars do have their irreplaceable uses for long trips, carrying large quantities of stuff and the like. It's not like I don't rent or borrow cars from time to time.
But I don't think it's possible to condemn out of hand a world in which public transit is in much wider use. Done properly, trains are convenient and comfortable. But that's beside the point. I think the real problem is that you don't want to spend time with other people in your immediate vicinity (say, somewhere from a foot to a yard away.) That's certainly your right. But is that a universal sentiment? It's not one of mine and I gather that in Japan and other densely populated areas, people have largely accepted that some of your time is spent in contact with other people, some is not, and this isn't the end of the world.
I'm fighting desperately against beginning my "civilization is crumbling" rant, but make one fairly unheated observation. Time spent travelling by non-car means typically leads to overhearing random intriguing conversations from people whose lives are utterly unlike mine, bumping into old friends I haven't seen in a long time and/or reading. Sure, these things aren't everyone's cup of tea, but do they really qualify as "ick"?
46. Raskolnikov - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:28 PM PT
I can see many circumstances where I would have no problem with privatizing roads. But it has a lot of limits. Do neighborhood roads get privatized as well? Do I have to pay a monopoly firm for the right to leave my driveway, since the firm owns the road in front of my house?
There are some advantages for marginal cost pricing of roads, but keep in mind that this can easily be done without privatization, if you want to avoid a road monopoly.
And how would a libertarian system create new roads, or expand existing roads to handle additional capacity? I assume you guys despise emminent domain.
47. katewrath - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:34 PM PT
der...I meant of course, to say, that "I'm not saying cars aren't great..."
Excuse me, I cannot check my messages after posting b/c Slate hates me and my Netscape-using Mac.
Btw, fear of the economic impact if the car makers flounder is a pretty flimsy reason to keep car use high. Car makers can look out for themselves.
48. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:34 PM PT
Kate,
Longer response coming, but two things:
1) I was not mocking you, in case you thought I was.
2) I did not drive until I was 22. I then bought a car, so that I would learn how to drive. Until then, I worked full time in Palo Alto, went to college in San Jose (two different times a day), and lived in Redwood City. That is 90 miles a day commuting. Sam Trans (bus) and Cal Train. In short, dearheart: I know ALL about public transit, including the good parts. I was a vegetarian who discovered meat. Reformed smoker in reverse, or something.
49. elliot803 - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:44 PM PT
CalGal:
"How much entrepreneurialism is stymied, how much flexibility is lost, in a world where a person's ability to move around and make job decisions is based on whether or not they can find a ride?"
How much is lost because people are stuck in traffic? How much is lost because of the lack of efficient mass transit?
"You make roads expensive, people will eventually stop buying cars, and damn! we're England."
People in England buy lots of cars.
"Never mind the hit on the economy a cutback on automobile manufacturing would have."
We'd gradually transfer that productive capacity into mass transit.
50. ranheim - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:44 PM PT
#36 & #41
Remember that Jefferson believed in a bucolic Arcadia. He thought that cities were evil (or some very similar word). As a life-long country boy, I'll buy into that. Jefferson questioned whether the republic they formed could stand up to an urban environment. It has not! Unfortunately.
I have to give it to you city people; I don't see how you put up with the inconviences. When my wife and go to Baton Rouge on days off, we continually complain about the traffic, the noise, the filth, on and on. On the way home, one of us always says "Its nice to go, but, its nicer to come home!" She, too, is country.
51. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT
Kate,
"But I don't think it's possible to condemn out of hand a world in which public transit is in much wider use."
Not at all. I said as much a while back. But frankly, the only time I see suburban mass transit working at all is on a corridor. Other approaches, as I said, would be
"I think the real problem is that you don't want to spend time with other people in your immediate vicinity (say, somewhere from a foot to a yard away.) That's certainly your right. But is that a universal sentiment? "
No, I spelled it out earlier. I think the real problem is I don't want to lose the flexibility, the time, *and* spending time with the weirdos. Remember, outside of standard commute hours the weirdo percentage is *much* higher on suburban transit zones. And it is not a universal sentiment, but it is a majority sentiment.
"It's not one of mine and I gather that in Japan and other densely populated areas, people have largely accepted that some of your time is spent in contact with other people, some is not, and this isn't the end of the world."
And when enough of us change enough to not mind it, we'll have it. But I'm a big believer in cultural differences, and the "it works in England/Japan/Outer Mongolia" approach never cuts it for me. It worked there either because their government was different and enforced it--or it worked there because people wanted it that way. It won't work here without one or the other.
cont'd.
52. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT
cont'd to Kate:
However, as a peace offering (having also done damage to your BWP enjoyment, I am feeling guilty), I make the following suggestion: Most of the commuters on the "corridor" in my area work at one of the end points--usually The City (SF, of course, there being no other The City). This is because once you're in the city, it's fairly convenient to get around and--more importantly--parking is a bitch and extremely expensive.
But in my area, at least, the major industy areas on the way *to* the City are not commuted to in great numbers. Why? Well, you could argue for loss of flexibility, but I'd go for the other: parking is free. So you have all these huge companies offering tons and tons of free parking. There would be a rebellion, but if cities wanted to increase public transit, they could mandate that companies charge for their parking lots. I see no reason why we should all be paying for that cement.
I think a lot of companies would then opt not to *have* parking lots, and so on.
There. How's that?
53. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:50 PM PT
ranheim,
Part of the problem with suburban sprawl is that people try to have it both ways - country quiet and urban conveniences. The result is a mess of banality and traffic jams.
A nice thing about "going to the country for the weekend" in Europe is that you can actually go to a village that is actually surrounded by country on all sides. That's hard to do, here.
CalGal,
Funny you should say that. The greatest freedom I felt in my life was in my first year of living in Europe, when I took nothing but public transit. I bought a car when spouse got pregnant, but avoided using it at all costs
54. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:56 PM PT
Elliot,
"How much is lost because people are stuck in traffic? How much is lost because of the lack of efficient mass transit?"
Well, in cases where there is effective mass transit and people don't use it--none. And in cases where people are stuck in traffic but there is effective mass transit--none. Since that is overwhelmingly the case in a number of communities that *do* have effective mass transit (and I include my area, which has quite a bit and it is used--just not anywhere approaching capacity)--the only answer would be to tell all those people that they don't know better and to use public transit, dammit!
But my point was different--everyone focuses on what is lost. You mention those. But no one realizes what is gained. Also, I was addressing privatization of roads in that post, not public transit.
People in England might buy a lot of cars, but I am guessing they don't have anywhere near the percentage of ownership that we do. If they don't, then it doesn't matter how many cars they buy. If they do, then I stand corrected. I realize that you don't think we *need* this percentage of ownership, but that's a different story, and I'm not going to argue it with you.
55. Raskolnikov - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:56 PM PT
rannheim:"I have to give it to you city people; I don't see how you put up with the inconviences. When my wife and go to Baton Rouge on days off, we continually complain about the traffic, the noise, the filth, on and on. On the way home, one of us always says "Its nice to go, but, its nicer to come home!" She, too, is country."
Speaking as a country boy turned city slicker, I'll say that the absence of allergy causing pollen, the stench of cow manure, pick up trucks, farm implements driving 5 miles an hour in the middle of the road, and the presence of decent restaurants, movie theaters, touring broadway productions, speciality shops, high speed Internet connections, local theater, decent job markets, and fewer rednecks more than makes up for it.
56. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 3:57 PM PT
LadyChaos,
You lived in Europe, presumably in a densely populated area where it was convenient and timely? See previous posts on the difference between urban and suburban public transit.
57. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
Message #55 Hahaha!
CalGal,
I was responding to your post where you mentioned the desire for flexibility, which I suppose I equate with freedom. Yes, the city I lived in was densely populated, but you could just as well hop on a cheap bus to the mountains on the weekend. I find the one-person automobile to be a sort of tyranny. But maybe that's just me. I'm also occasionally a hypocrite, as I prefer a car when I'm dressed nice to go out for an evening.
58. cllrdr - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:08 PM PT
"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" provides a very concise picture of urban disaster that befell Los Angeles when the forces of greed conspired to eliminate the Red car and create the nightmare that is the Freeway system.
The subway that they've been working on here for ages and spending countless millions of dollars towards "building" is, needless to say, a scam. And a joke. Not funny, but a joke nonetheless.
59. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:15 PM PT
Lady,
About hopping that cheap bus--or the trains in Europe that go from city to city--I imagine that came about because many people didn't have cars and so the public transit developed as a result?
If I lived in Europe, I'd probably use public transit more, too. If I lived in a city *here*, I'd use it more. Hell, I worked in Oakland for a while and took BART under the Bay to SF to see friends for lunch. Why? Because it would take 45 minutes to drive and 15 minutes by BART. Parking is more expensive than the subway fare. Done deal.
See, I think the development of the two continents during the 40s and 50s was so dramatically different that comparisons are pointless. At this point, we here in the US have cars because we *know* it's more convenient, and we'll never spend enough money--to say nothing of suffering the construction inconvenience--to build an equivalently convenient system here. Europe has them, but they developed naturally, by and large, over time and in response to a need.
We don't have the need. And rare is the suburb that is going to vote in the need by making driving more expensive or more inconvenent to encourage commuting.
In fact, we're still pissed over the diamond lanes. We all agreed to pay more for more lanes, and then they say "Yeah, but these are commuter lanes only?"
The majority suburban response: Fuck *that* shit. And what are they called these days? The daddy diamonds, or something, since in most states they are used primarily by parents taking their kids to daycare.
And you can support public transit and still want to have a car periodically. That's not hypocritical. I absolve thee.
60. elliot803 - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
CalGal:
"Well, in cases where there is effective mass transit and people don't use it--none."
Huh? How does that prevent the "loss of flexibility" and "stymying of entrepreneurialism" caused by traffic jams?
"And in cases where people are stuck in traffic but there is effective mass transit--none."
Also untrue. If traffic jams have an economic cost, as they surely do, that cost exists whether there is an effective mass transit alternative or not.
"Since that is overwhelmingly the case in a number of communities that *do* have effective mass transit (and I include my area, which has quite a bit and it is used--just not anywhere approaching capacity)--the only answer would be to tell all those people that they don't know better and to use public transit, dammit!"
Not at all. There are countless possible incentives to use mass transit rather than to drive. Just because the present incentives are insufficient, it does not follow that "the only answer" is to "tell" people to use mass transit, dammit.
"People in England might buy a lot of cars, but I am guessing they don't have anywhere near the percentage of ownership that we do."
I think it's pretty close. I know at least one European country (Italy, I think) has or recently had a higher rate of car ownership than the U.S.
"But my point was different--everyone focuses on what is lost. You mention those. But no one realizes what is gained."
Oh, I think everyone understands what is gained from cars. I love my car and it would take a lot to make me give it up. But there's a lot of room even in the sprawling western U.S. cities for less use of cars and more use of mass transit. It's not an either/or situation.
61. Slackjaw - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:27 PM PT
If one wants the wealthy to pay more for roads, this can still be done if the marginal cost is non-zero. Either when you renew your vehicle registration or pay your income taxes, you could purchase a toll permit to go on your license plate, that would automatically charge you when you enter various pieces of the network. The cost of the permit could be tied to income. Obviously this requires electronic collection, but I think that is the only realistic proposal if one wants marginal cost to be non-zero--with or without the equity graduation.
Of course, one could also just charge everyone the same, namely the true marginal cost, and make up for any equity effects (in road access and elsewhere) with income transfers. You can achieve all the equity you want without mucking up the efficiency of access control.
62. Slackjaw - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:28 PM PT
CalGal,
"Well, in cases where there is effective mass transit and people don't use it--none. And in cases where people are stuck in traffic but there is effective mass transit--none."
I don't see why those conditions causes the answers to be "none."
63. Slackjaw - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:31 PM PT
if limiting access to roads entails a cost, in terms of flexibility, entrepreneurship, etc., then that cost ought to be considered against any benefits of less congestion. I would be quite shocked if after comparison it turned out that the optimal balance is just the way things presently are.
64. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:33 PM PT
Elliot,
"Also untrue. If traffic jams have an economic cost, as they surely do, that cost exists whether there is an effective mass transit alternative or not."
Hmm. I am probably putting this badly. First off, I wasn't referring to economics in the collective sense, although possibly in the individual sense. If an individual has access to an effective mass transit system and chooses not to use it because he'd rather drive, then hasn't he assessed the costs of each choice? Therefore, he has decided that the cost is greater to use public transit. As such, any cost of waiting in traffic, as compared to using public transit, has already been assessed and "paid" as part of the choice not to use public transit. That's what I meant when I said "none", in the case where an effective mass transit system exists.
"There are countless possible incentives to use mass transit rather than to drive. Just because the present incentives are insufficient, it does not follow that 'the only answer' is to 'tell' people to use mass transit, dammit. "
Okay, but suppose that no matter what you offer them, they decide still to drive? Unless you contend that this is not a possible outcome, all I'm saying is that in *that* case, you'd have to force them into public transit in order to justify the cost.
"But there's a lot of room even in the sprawling western U.S. cities for less use of cars and more use of mass transit. It's not an either/or situation"
Well, I've already said the same thing--there are ways to increase the use of suburban public transit where it exists now. But the suburbs aren't likely to agree to pay for a lot of new ones. If they do, great. It is still not going to do anything other than marginally reduce suburban driving. You want to do that, you do what Kate and Jones mention--re-engineer.
65. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
Slack,
Actually, I doubt that what I'm speaking of can be measured. It's more intangible than that. And more than anything, it was something I tossed onto the scales as something to think of when everyone complains about the downside.
"If one wants the wealthy to pay more for roads, this can still be done if the marginal cost is non-zero. "
I'm not sure if I understood this, but if I did, there are two different issues. 1) Privatizing roads and 2) the fact that we only pay for the one-time cost of the roads, not the usage. Originally, though, Ronski was talking about them as if the reason for 2 is because we don't do 1.
So I was saying you can't privatize roads in a way that is assessed proportionately by income. Whether you only cover the cost or increase the cost to cover usage. At least, that's my assumption--that privatization assumes the same price for all.
I have no real issue with increasing the cost of roads *somewhat*, although I think it is one of the things the government should subsidize to a large extent. And I agree that there's no reason that increased costs can't be assessed proportionate to income.
66. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
I'm still hoping to hear from a Portland Fraygrant. As I understand it, Portland established a ring around the city, nearly 30 years ago, beyond which no development can happen. This forced greater density, and more effective development of mass transit. From what I hear, it's a great success; people can take a tram to work, and for the weekends they are only a twenty minute drive from pristine wilderness. The only interest group that's fighting it are the developers (as you might have guessed), who want to make just as much a mess of that city as they've made in Greater L.A. and just about the rest of the country.
Any Portlanders out there?
67. elliot803 - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:51 PM PT
CalGal:
"If an individual has access to an effective mass transit system and chooses not to use it because he'd rather drive, then hasn't he assessed the costs of each choice?"
No, not necessarily. Many of the costs of cars and roads and urban sprawl are hidden or delayed and may not be properly taken into account by individual drivers. And the costs are distributed over more people than just those who drive. So even if a rational cost/benefit analysis favors driving over mass transit for particular individuals, that doesn't make it true for the community as a whole. The whole issue is much more complicated than just the number of people who choose to drive rather than take mass transit under a particular set of conditions.
"Well, I've already said the same thing--there are ways to increase the use of suburban public transit where it exists now. But the suburbs aren't likely to agree to pay for a lot of new ones."
If we raise the price of gas, or limit highway construction funds, or reserve more lanes for car pools, or offer free bus passes for commuters, or do countless other possible things, they may well agree to pay for more mass transit. It all depends on the incentives.
68. uzmakk - Aug. 4, 1999 - 4:57 PM PT
Message #66Lady Chaos:
I understand that London maintained its "green belts" up until just a few years ago. I think the argument was that London was simply too crowded and some type of communities are being devloped in the green belts. The numbers 60 or 80 thousand seem to ring a bell.
69. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 5:08 PM PT
Elliot,
"So even if a rational cost/benefit analysis favors driving over mass transit for particular individuals, that doesn't make it true for the community as a whole. "
Agreed. I've already said that my "none" response was on a different basis, and based on your definition I retract. But the problem is, it is individuals who choose to drive or take transit. Goes back to the issue I see--that unless you *make* people give up driving to work (for example), I don't see that it will ever effectively guarantee that each individual will make the choice that is best for the community. I am woefully ignorant of economics, but that sounds like something to do with that whole "free rider" thing. Ha! Literally.
"If we raise the price of gas, or limit highway construction funds, or reserve more lanes for car pools, or offer free bus passes for commuters, or do countless other possible things, they may well agree to pay for more mass transit. It all depends on the incentives."
I tell you, Elliot, it would have to be a huge incentive. And it couldn't be something that the voters have to approve, since they would probably never approve it. And if the voters wouldn't approve it, it is nothing more than a way of saying We'll FORCE you to commute.
70. elliot803 - Aug. 4, 1999 - 5:25 PM PT
CalGal:
"I tell you, Elliot, it would have to be a huge incentive."
A huge incentive in order for WHAT to happen? Where I work here in Phoenix, which is probably the least mass transit-friendly city in the country, a significant number of people have chosen to use mass transit (bus) or to car pool, van pool, or bike to work, on one or more days of the week, in response to some fairly modest incentives, like subsidized bus passes. Mass transit Initiatives have recently passed in Scottsdale and Tempe (Phoenix suburbs), and a light-rail system has long been contemplated.
If gas prices went up to $3 a gallon, a lot of those gas-guzzling SUV owners might become a whole lot more willing to ride a bus or train to work. Again, no one is really trying to make people give up their cars completely, just use their cars less and buses and trains more.
71. phillipdavid - Aug. 4, 1999 - 5:47 PM PT
LadyChaos
Message #66
The whole state of Oregon has something called the Land Conservation and Development Commission -- the LCDC. I haven't even thought about it or heard about it since I was in school 20 years ago. Its basic purpose is to regulate how land is used here, and it has basically done what you said, and it has done that in all the urban areas.
35 years ago we had a governor who didn't want Oregon to turn into a California. The LCDC developed out of that concern. During his tenure (Gov McCall) we even had signs on the interstate highway from California that said something like "Glad to have you visit, but please don't stay".
When I was taking political science classes 20 years ago, what I rememeber in conncection with the LCDC is the big bruhaha land owners were making over the fact that the LCDC wouldn't allow them to develop their land like they wished. Farmers and timerland owners were really upset about the LCDC; they saw it as infringing upon, or taking away their personal God-given liberty to do whatever they wanted with their land.
Now it is just a forgotten fact of life. Like I said, I don't remember hearing or reading much about it in years.
72. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 6:02 PM PT
phillipdavid,
It's actually been in the news quite a lot, lately. The NY Times discussed at length a couple of months ago in an article on urban sprawl. I've seen pictures of the trams in Portland; they look like the newer ones in Prague, which are quite nice.
Part of the problem is that people in this country, for the most part, don't have any real choices as to where to live. Because freeways have screwed up the cities so much, nobody wants to live there. Because zoning laws prevent dense development, nobody has the chance to buy townhouses. But in surveys where people are shown different types of communities and asked where they would prefer to live, they invariably pick out ones with narrow houses of different sizes (meaning large house next to small house, front porches close to the yard, no garage facing the quaint, narrow street, and shops within walking distance. Unfortunately, our zoning laws in most cities have prevented this type of development from occurring. Some planned communities are now following this template, but it seems to be too little, too late.
This is very important for this issue, because the architecture of neighborhoods has a crucial effect on how people go to work, school, shopping and where they go to play at night.
73. elliot803 - Aug. 4, 1999 - 6:45 PM PT
CalGal:
"But the problem is, it is individuals who choose to drive or take transit. Goes back to the issue I see--that unless you *make* people give up driving to work (for example), I don't see that it will ever effectively guarantee that each individual will make the choice that is best for the community."
Yes. We can't trust individuals to freely choose to do the right thing for the community as a whole. But again, you are oversimplfying by portraying the issue as a choice between doing nothing and "forced" use of mass transit. Except in extreme situations, there's no question of "forcing" people to use mass transit, it's a matter of using incentives and disincentives to persuade people to modify their behavior. I've already mentioned some powerful incentives myself, and you earlier mentioned another one: parking restrictions. If, say, the City of Phoenix imposed a $20 daily tax on all weekday parking between the hours of 7am and 6pm within a certain perimeter of the downtown area, that would be a fairly strong incentive for people to find alternative means of transportation into the city center (including, yes, mass transit).
74. lemwalker - Aug. 4, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
Spying the title of this thread I wanted to jump in and vote Yes. Transport the urbanites to another galaxy. Reading the posts shows it to be of a more practical nature.
Have had the pleasure, twice this year, of going to Beaverton Oregon for training. The motel is within walking distance of the facility holding the class, numerous restuarants and shopping. And a commuter train to Portland is right there too. Played 9 holes of golf for $8! Still the greatest pleasure as a pedestrian was pushing the "walk" button and backing up traffic.
75. Amaxen - Aug. 4, 1999 - 9:02 PM PT
How I learned to stop worrying and ignore the HOV laws.
For long I was one of those who toiled in the non-HOV lanes, to and from work. Those were days of rage. A clear path beckoned for me, marked by a diamond, while the road I traveled was slow and treacherous. I do not know how long I denied the belief that I must ignore the better path, but now I have accepted the wisdom. Here is how I did:
As I was driving at about 3 miles/hour, and confronted with the empty lane, I asked myself, 'well, why *not* drive in the empty lane?' I could not answer. From a self-interested point of view taking a 15 min. trip in 1hr.30min seemed folly: my time was well worth any fees I might be charged. 2 hours a day! 2 hours that I could use working, talking to friends, spending as I wished, instead of cursing the semi in front of me. I found out later that the price I had avoided paying was ludicrously cheap - a fee of 80$, submitted about twice a year, presented to me by friendly officers of the law *in person*, no less.
But then I asked, 'wouldn't it be wrong to do this? after all, they have these lanes for some reason. . . ' Then I thought about it. I hope the enviornmental organizations never hear about the HOV laws, because the obvious waste of gasoline produced by them is enormous. Here you have about twenty miles of two lanes of traffic, idling. I did a calculation of how much my milage was driving normally (about 30mpg) vs. when I am in non-HOV (about 4mpg!) multiply that gasoline rate out: Lets see, figure about 20ft per car, that makes ( 270cars/mile x 20 miles, x 2 lanes for 1 hour) = about 11,000 cars/hour. Now assume an average of say, 10 miles per gallon per car over a 20 mile stretch, and an average of 20 mpg if the HOV lane was not there: That means a wastage of 1 gallon per car, or about 11,000 gallons per hour!
76. Amaxen - Aug. 4, 1999 - 9:15 PM PT
Surely, if the legion of enviornmental organizations in my state were rational, they would all be against this kind of flagrant waste of resources and contributions to CO2 emissions. Perhaps none of their members have driven on I-405. Oh well.
Also, by driving HOV, I help my fellow non-HOV commuter and the enviornment by reducing congestion in said non-HOV lanes.
Needless to say, then, I was bound by my own economic interests, by my enviornmental concerns(LOL!), and my concern for my fellow man to stop worrying and ignore the HOV laws.
As a postscript, I checked my local DOT HOV web page and, in the style of euphanism I know well, claimed that the HOV program in my state "has been reclassified to be a generations-long project" translation: they know that the program has failed but are not allowed to admit it because of political pressures.
77. LadyChaos - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:17 PM PT
Amaxen,
I've heard that some HOV lanes are being eliminated for precisely the reasons you give.
78. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:33 PM PT
Elliot,
"But again, you are oversimplfying by portraying the issue as a choice between doing nothing and "forced" use of mass transit. "
Okay, I think I see what the problem is. I overstated it when I said that incentives *force* people from their cars, from your perspective. I'll try again. A $3/gallon gas price would not *force* people from their cars. But it would be an unpleasant price to pay. Unless people themselves agreed to the $3 gas price, it would be the government setting priorities in a way that I don't think would be popular.
Then I added to that the probability that any meaningful incentive (translation: causes more than 10% of the population to give up their cars for work) would have to be pretty damn powerful. For example, gas prices here were recently hovering around $2/gallon, and didn't make a dent in our driving habits. I'm not convinced that $3/gallon would do much other than weed out the low income drivers.
So--I'm making two assumptions that I don't think are all that outrageous:
1) The people are not likely to vote in any significant "incentives" themselves, and will not approve of the government taking the initiative in this area.
2) The only incentives that would really make an impact would also significantly increase the cost of driving--which makes it unlikely to happen.
79. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:34 PM PT
Anything short of major incentives are a no-brainer--and also nothing more than feel-good. The behavior you describe in Phoenix probably doesn't amount to even a percentage point of all the drivers, does it? And even 10%, which I consider major, is nothing to get worked up about in the major traffic areas.
In our area, when CalTrain went on strike, I think there were 16,000 commuters affected. That only sounds like a lot until you compare it to the number of cars on the road each day--the Caltrain strike putting all those people back on the road didn't create a noticeable dent in the traffic pattern. The BART strikes, or when the tunnel was down, did. But that was a hell of a lot more than 16,000 a day.
80. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:37 PM PT
I've never been affected by HOV lanes all that much, since I rarely take jobs that will cause me to suffer dreadful traffic for too long. In our area, though, the price for HOV violation is $250 or so for the first one and it goes up from there. We also take an insurance hit.
The CHP are vigilant in their revenue raising efforts. As a result, the violations are few and the lanes are empty. I'd love to see someone decide to up the requirement to three occupants--all the parents with only one kid would be disqualified and the lanes would wither away from lack of use.
81. Amaxen - Aug. 4, 1999 - 10:59 PM PT
Oh, BTW Calgal,
I wanted to thank you for your posting about your work in the thread 'What's your line'. I do similar work to yours now up here in Seattle/Bellevue. (VB/Database contract programmer) Your explanation of your job description helped me out quite a bit. Thanks.
82. Amaxen - Aug. 4, 1999 - 11:01 PM PT
Regarding HOV,
personal anectdote aside, I would argue that HOV lanes are inefficient everywhere. They are inefficient economically, enviornmentally, and inefficient policy. The only reason they exist at all is because they are efficient political responses to various interest groups.
83. Slackjaw - Aug. 4, 1999 - 11:17 PM PT
CalGal, one thing to consider about responsiveness of driving habits to gas prices is the long vs. short run distinction. Behavior in the short run is fairly unresponsive to changes in gas prices, but surprisingly responsive in the long run (e.g., after people have a chance to adjust their holdings of things like cars). The exorbitant gas prices in California I think were understood as a short run phenomenon.
"So I was saying you can't privatize roads in a way that is assessed proportionately by income. Whether you only cover the cost or increase the cost to cover usage. At least, that's my assumption--that privatization assumes the same price for all." I see. Yes, competitive markets work best when prices are impersonal. But does the goal of equity have to be accomplished with the pricing instrument, just because the equity concern is tied to the income profile of road costs? Why not use the pricing instrument to achieve efficiency, and use some transfer scheme to achieve equity goals?
What you're talking about, the costs of limited access, would be difficult to measure, to be sure. But we could at least give it a try, and probably come up with a better understanding of the tradeoff we face.
84. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 11:50 PM PT
Slack,
I didn't quite understand this:
"But does the goal of equity have to be accomplished with the pricing instrument, just because the equity concern is tied to the income profile of road costs? Why not use the pricing instrument to achieve efficiency, and use some transfer scheme to achieve equity goals?"
I think my answers are: no, it doesn't have to and I suppose you could. Both said with my head cocked skeptically to one side and doubt in my voice.
I still think the *best* way to truly address this problem is a complete re-engineering of the way we live, work, and get about. That's not happening. With that in mind, I am assuming that any solutions we're discussing here (like road privatization, and so on) are going to be targeted specifically at drivers and the various hoohaws that you can hit with taxes or usage fees (cars, gas prices, tolls, registration, etc.).
So I wonder how any transfer scheme would offset the immediate pain of the increased prices to the poor? Unless the government said hey, you're poor, here's some monthly cash to help offset driving costs. Otherwise, I would worry that the disconnect between the time the money was paid and the time the income was transferred back wouldn't be soon enough to offset the inconvenience.
And unless you gave *all* lower income people the same chunk of money, they'd have to prove they drove, and so on. Of course, I suppose they are all getting the same break now, in a lower tax rate. Hmm.
cont'd.
85. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 11:52 PM PT
If you raised the price of driving significantly, and gave poor people a big chunk back to make it easier, it seems to me they would have a big incentive to keep the money and take public transit. I can't really say that this is a bad thing, per se, but it seems possible that it could potentially a) disincent the poor from driving and b) "ghetto-ize" public transit. Which, in the end, doesn't equalize the road. (I freely grant you my prejudices: as far as I'm concerned, the Zeroth Amendment ought to be about the right to drive.)
If you aren't talking about just giving them a chunk of money and there is a way to target the payback, relate it to driving, and make it immediate enough so that the disconnect between spending the money and getting it back discourages them from driving, then I'm definitely up for it.
So long as driving disincentives and the costs of driving are proportionately applied (which means progressively taxed, or if it doesn't, then change the words so it means that), I have no objection.
Costs of driving: fair point about the time factor. But did our driving habits change much in the 70s? I know that we started buying more fuel efficient cars, and until we had them we didn't go on long trips--but we rebounded quickly, didn't we? Or can our car usage be correlated to gas prices in any way?
"But we could at least give it a try, and probably come up with a better understanding of the tradeoff we face."
Sure.
86. rustlerpike - Aug. 4, 1999 - 11:53 PM PT
There should be humungous, secure car parks outside urban areas where people live. Cars should not be allowed into urban residential areas at all. There should be electric golf carts available for anyone who wants to move around inside these areas. Put in a quarter and go wherever you want, at 15 mph. Park your cart when you've reached your destination and let whoever wants to take it do so. There should always be more carts than are needed.
87. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 11:54 PM PT
Amaxen,
I'm not sure how I helped, but I'm glad you found it useful!
Incidentally, Seattle's traffic is EVIL. I've never understood why people bitch about California. SoCal is lousy, but we up here don't have anything approaching the mess y'all have. It's the bridges.
And I agree about the uselessness of diamond lanes, which is *another* indication that incentives would have to be powerful to get us to give up our freedom.
88. FreetoChoose - Aug. 5, 1999 - 4:38 AM PT
rustlerpike
“There should be humungous, secure car parks outside urban areas where people live. Cars should not be allowed into urban residential areas at all….”
Sounds like Zermatt, except for the golf carts. Although the site link doesn't say so explicitly, private cars aren't allowed in Zermatt. It's a great place (although my impression is colored more by the mountain than the transportation decisions).
89. FreetoChoose - Aug. 5, 1999 - 4:45 AM PT
I know Ladychaos was looking more for solutions than railing about problems, but for a summary of some of the problems with our existing idiotic approach to mass transit, see here (Yes, it's a CATO site, in the interest of full disclosure to those who want to avoid information.)
Excerpt:
“Over the past quarter century, U.S. taxpayers have pumped more than $100 billion in subsidies into the nation's urban mass transit systems. That massive taxpayer investment has paid for urban public transportation systems that fewer
and fewer Americans are using. Incredibly, mass transit ridership is lower today--not only as a percentage of commuter trips taken but also in absolute numbers of riders--than it was in the early 1960s.”
90. LadyChaos - Aug. 5, 1999 - 5:52 AM PT
FTC,
Thanks for the link. The only problem I have with the info is that it's quite out of date - eight years, in fact.
Do you have anything more recent?
I've been up all night, working on a project, so I might not be around today. I'll catch ya'll later.
91. FreetoChoose - Aug. 5, 1999 - 5:57 AM PT
In the interest of solutions:
One of the dilemmas in designing a mass transit train system is determining the frequencies of stops. Everyone wants a stop near where they live and a stop near where they work, but few intermediate stops. Lot's of stops means lots of locations near home and work sites, but lots of stops means, well, lots of stops. So far, the only solution is a mixture of local and express trains. While this provides some help, it is very limited. Express trains still make a number of stops, and, in most cases I have experienced, take longer to get from point A to point B than a car. This obviously doesn't help people near local stops, and all trains outside of rush hour tend to be local trains. Take a Metro North local train to North White Plains (NY) if you are in the mood for a painful experience. (Chicago's AB system provides an interesting alternative, but still unsatisfying.)
The ultimate, of course, would be a system where anyone can get on a nearby location, and proceed non-stop to their desired destination. Impossible? Nope. I've designed a train that is the ultimate express train, coupled with the ultimate in local convenience.
(Before CalGal interjects, this is a solution to corridor travel only.)
Read on.
92. FreetoChoose - Aug. 5, 1999 - 5:58 AM PT
In the twentieth Century, you might arrive at Grand central station about 5 o'clock, wanting to go to New Haven, 84 miles to the northeast. You look at the schedule and see that you can take a 5:10 local getting you in at 7:09, or wait for the 5:18 express getting you in at 7:01. The express is the better choice, but if you wanted to go to Stamford, or Springdale, or a number of other locations, you would have to take a different train.
The express will take you an hour and 43 minutes (if it arrives on time, which it often doesn't do) for a whopping 49 miles per hour. And it still has ten stops on the way. That's if you manage to time your arrival precisely at 5:18.
In the twenty-first century, you arrive at Grand Central at any time of day, and find a super express ready to leave in less than ten minutes. It departs NYC, gets up to 100 mph, and speeds to your destination. If you want to go to New Haven, it will take you about 50 minutes. But even if you want to go to Darien or Riverside, the same train will speed you there at one hundred miles per hour, and drop you off at your stop.
This train makes no stops; this train makes every stop.
How?
Read on.
93. FreetoChoose - Aug. 5, 1999 - 5:58 AM PT
When the train leaves NYC, it has six seating cars, and one undersized car at the end, with standing room only. Every has moved into one of the seating cars, with New Haven passengers in the front car. As the train nears 125th street, the passengers interested in getting off there, get up and move to the rear car. About a mile outside the station, the rear car detaches from the train. A half mile from the station, this car is 200 yards behind the train. A switch is pulled, and the small car turns onto the siding heading into the station. It slows to a stop at the station, and the passengers disembark, while the main train roars by 125th street at 100 mph.
As the train passes the station, a small car departs the station on the siding. It gradually gets up to speed as the train passes by. The train pulls ahead of the car, leaving a gap. Then the siding merges with the main track, and the small car is on the same track. It briefly speeds up to 120 mph, catches up to the main train, and connects to it. The few passengers from 125th street move from this car into one of the seating cars, while the passengers wanting to get off at Fordham move into the small car.
The process is repeated until New Rochelle. At this point, enough passengers have left, that we drop of one of the small cars, and a full-size seating car. A small car departs from New Rochelle, catches up to the train, and it continues on with five full cars and a small car. Every third or fourth stop, we drop a full-size car, finally pulling into New Haven with the 2 or 3 remaining cars.
94. FreetoChoose - Aug. 5, 1999 - 5:59 AM PT
Continued
Heading into the city, the process is reversed. The train starts in New Haven with 2 or 3 cars, and picks up cars along the way. The train never slows from its 100 mph pace, but is able to pick up passengers at every one of the 31 “stops” along the route (and perhaps new ones, as “stops” do not slow the train).
Not only does this improve the trip from New Haven to New York, it means that people can take the train from Bridgeport to Pelham, NY. (I challenge you to find a reasonable schedule to do that now.)
Some of you may be wondering about some of the details. For a small car to depart a station and catch up with a 100 mph train, it has to be powered. Am I essentially assuming that every car is an engine? That wouldn't really be feasible.
No, I assume that the cars could be powered by flywheels. Not the massive, hunks of iron used as flywheels in the 19th century, but carbon fiber, low density rim flywheels being designed today.
(See general info
and Physics background)
95. FreetoChoose - Aug. 5, 1999 - 6:02 AM PT
Continued
A flywheel motor provides more than one benefit. It can be very quiet. It can power the car for the short distance it needs to catch up to the main train. Once attached to the train, it does not need to expend power any more. When pulling into the station, the car needs to slow down, Instead of conventional brakes, which convert the energy of the car into waste heat, it can use regenerative braking. Essentially, the car slows down by speeding the flywheel up. A significant portion of the energy needed to speed the car up to catch the train can be recovered when it “brakes” to slow down for the next “stop”. Those who paid attention in physics class will know that there is some loss, so some energy must be added. This is done by putting on the ”brakes” after it attaches to the main train. This will bring the flywheel back up to enough speed so that the regenerative braking at the next stop will bring it back to full speed.
regenerative braking
I'm skipping some of the details to keep this down to a manageable size.
Any questions?
96. Raskolnikov - Aug. 5, 1999 - 7:49 AM PT
HOV lanes are interesting. I use one in Minneapolis regularly, when I take my kid to day care. It is very empty, and you avoid a couple of congested metered on-ramps. Because of its vacancy, and because the non-HOV lanes on that section of the Interestate (I394, if you care) is very gridlock prone, there has been a lot of discussion about opening the HOV lanes up to more traffic.
They talked about letting drivers pay to use the lane (about $80 a month, I think), but that didn't fly. Commuters bristled at the idea of the wealthy flying by in the HOV lane while they were stuck in gridlock.
They talked about opening it up to all traffic, but the same political forces which pushed for the HOV lane in the first place screamed about that.
Personally, I can't see how the existing system can be improved much. The main problem with that stretch of Interestate is that there is a horrible bottleneck where it merges with I94. Taking the HOV lane doesn't avoid the bottleneck - you have to merge with the non-HOV lanes before going through - but the line for getting through the bottleneck is smaller. So if they opened the HOV lanes up, the lines for the HOV and non-HOV lanes would equalize, and the bottleneck wait would be just as long as it is now.
But this is a rather unique situation.
97. jonesatlaw - Aug. 5, 1999 - 8:25 AM PT
FTC- your proposal is fascinating. It does seem to answer both sides of the express/local need with one system. The hard part would be the coupling/decoupling part, wouldn't it?
98. Raskolnikov - Aug. 5, 1999 - 8:31 AM PT
The hard would be the cost. and the logistics. I think it is a fascinating concept, though.
99. FreetoChoose - Aug. 5, 1999 - 9:04 AM PT
jonesatlaw
I'll be thrilled if I find out that the major problem with my proposal is a need to solve coupling and decoupling. I realize I know less about coupling than I need to. Maybe I'll try the new answer thread.
100. CalGal - Aug. 5, 1999 - 9:44 AM PT
I agree that FTC's concept is a good one. And I'm all for solutions that only address corridor situations. It's a start.
Rask,
"I use one in Minneapolis regularly, when I take my kid to day care. "
Laughed my ass off. Thanks for proving my point about those damn diamond lanes.