Really there should be a high speed rail along the front range and subways in places like Denver. And zoning that prioritizes development that utilized that.
Ideally, you'd do that by improving the bus rather than accepting the current shitty bus situation and degrading driving to the point that it's even worse...
It would be very hard to make it better for, say, picking up DIY supplies at the hardware store.
Most cars can fit a few 8' 2x4s as well as several bags of bulk dirt, and what hardware stores often have is a cutting service that lets you make those 2x4s shorter for transit. None of those would fit on a bus.
The local lumber/building supply companies also usually have delivery, though they can be harder to deal with than a consumer-oriented hardware store.
A.k.a the cost of not owning a car. Where I live, I could pay 100€ weekly for deliveries and it'll still be cheaper than owning and operating a decent (as in, not a 20th century rust bucket) car would be.
The big problem with sprawl is that it's subsidized. The federal government taxes the population at large and uses that tax money to build large roads and lay down the necessary utilities, sewage, and drainage. Interstates and interstate connections (viaducts, onramps, offramps, etc) come purely out of the FHWA budget which comes from taxes. Gas taxes help but the federal gas tax hasn't been changed since 1990 (indexed for inflation that's basically been a discounting gas tax) and as fuel efficiency standards increase and hybrid/EV penetration increases gas taxes end up netting less money per mile driven. Add to that the fact that cars are getting heavier in the US, increasing wear-and-tear on existing roads, and you're basically making maintenance of roads in the US cost more money per taxpayer. Some states have been increasing vehicle registration fees to compensate but that remains very unpopular.
Local roads are initially funded by the government and based on whether they are collector roads or arterials, state and federal governments allocate extra money to these roads. But when construction finishes these roads often need to be maintained by local municipalities which is when the problems come in. Often times municipalities, especially ones with lower incomes, begin having trouble maintaining roads. Higher income municipalities raise local taxes to pay for their roads but Americans also hate paying local taxes which makes this unpopular and often unviable in poorer municipalities where incomes cannot accommodate the extra tax. That's how you get huge, sprawly cities that have terrible pavement. My city is struggling with this. The rust belt has tons of cities with this.
Moreover as the US population increases we continue to sprawl outward, destroying nature with sprawly housing developments that are viable because federal and state governments often pay for initial development. You mention democracy but there's not that much democracy going on. Often times rural voters aren't organized enough to create the kind of opposition to sprawl that urban voters have. You can't have opposition via public comment in a rural area because there is no planning agency which listens to public comment in many rural areas. In fact that's often why developers target unincorporated rural areas in the first place.
Unlike Europe, Asian countries are fine with car use, but don't subsidize it nearly as much as the US does. Japan, outside of Tokyo (which is a huge city and an outlier in the way NYC is), has narrower and fewer lanes on their roads for given traffic volumes. Public street parking mostly doesn't exist and authorities quickly tow vehicles that park where they're not supposed to. As such there's a robust market for parking lots. The closer you are to a city center the more vertical, compact, and expensive the lots are. The further you are the cheaper the lots are. In really rural towns the towns run parking lots that are basically free during the day.
The US does a lot to encourage car use. It has much higher LOS standards for its roads than other developed countries, it uses federal and state tax money to offer free parking, police officers are kind to drivers and let them overstay parking limits for longer than they should and only ticket the most flagrant offenders tacitly allowing everything from using your phone in the car to styling your hair in it. And this car culture is irrational and taking up an increasing amount of GDP and emissions.
Also if it's democracy that's your problem, this article in Colorado is all about democracy. The voters voted in a pro-transit governor, they voted in the tax increases to fund additional transit, and they approve of planning officials who refuse to widen highways. So car culture isn't as popular in the US as some think. There is an increasingly vocal minority of people who aren't happy that car culture is losing its popularity though.
This has never stopped politicians before, not really sure why it will now.
Polis is much more than a pro transit governor. He's a successful serial entrepreneur, he's gay, he's charming in a nerdy way, and he's pragmatic. I dont think his election proves much about political will in regards to transit policy.
You've got a car but using it to get to work is inconvenient due to parking, and buses often have priority lanes.
But the idea of commuting to Paris or Rome in car is...tough..
But any density is opposed strangely by the anti-car crowd due to (e.g., see SF local politics).
1. "It will ruin the character of our precious million year old city"
2. "Building more housing will magically cause existing people to move out the city"
3. "Developers will get rich. Can't ever let that happen. They should be in perpetual misery."
If someone is advocating for anti-car policies but neutral or against density, they are holding inconsistent views.
In the US Farebox Recovery Ratios of 20% or less are common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#United_...
Only 58% of fuel tax in Australia is spent on any kind of transport including rail.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-21/fuel-excise-not-being...
Australians drive a similar amount to the US.
From
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/11/13/how-trains-could...
Yet only 8% of the distance travelled by land in the EU is by rail. Even in the most train-happy countries, Austria and the Netherlands, the figures are 13% and 11%. In those countries, more than 75% of land travel is done by car.
So even in Europe and Australia where cars more than pay for their costs people still drive a lot. This is with all the effort put in to public transport in Europe.
[1] https://alga.com.au/policy-centre/roads-and-infrastructure/r...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1309333/germany-modal-sp...
Public transit isn't all, just being denser so that biking and walking is more viable is also a big part to why European cities aren't concrete wastelands full of parking and roads. The normal way to go and buy groceries is to walk not drive.
But it is really easy to steal from these people, they are tiny babies or not even born yet, they can’t vote. Like stealing candy from a baby, except the candy is their planet’s ecosystem. Sucks to be them, I guess.
You're better off depending on age and grim reaper to get old people to stop driving and focus on habituating young people to just not.
So it’s not so much that just make driving cars shitty for no reason as it is that you _have_ to make driving shitty if you want to unshittify walking/biking/transit.
Induced demand is a concept that anti-car people use, but I don't think it makes much sense.
Imagine a library that only has a few copies of some best selling children's books. There's a very long queue to check out those books. Someone might argue that, "We should buy more copies of the best selling children's books".
The induced demand argument in this case would be: "If we buy more copies of those books, the queue wont disappear, since it is so long, but also, if the queue gets shorter, we might have people who don't use the library because of the queue start using it. We would be no better off!".
Of course in this analogy, we realize the fallacy. People are better off because more kids get to read books. Even if the queue stays the same length, we have more throughput, more kids get the benefit.
Now if we translate that to cars, of course, we see the difference. People who write books like "Paved Paradise" or "The High Cost of Free Parking" hate cars. They really do. They hate the suburbs too.
So when they see something that would enable people who don't currently drive cars to drive cars, or for people who live in urban areas to live in suburban areas, they're of course going to be against that.
"Induced demand" is being used here by languagehacker, as it is used by other people who are opposed to private property, as some sort of technical term that supports their case. But that isn't true.
By adding more copies of popular books to libraries, we want to induce demand. We want people to read the books, and we want people who don't currently use libraries to consider using them. The induced demand is not bad. We had a queue, it was too long, we shorten the queue, and by doing so some people who thought the queue was too long will no longer think that. This is good.
What languagehacker is saying, by referring to induced demand, is that, in the opinion of languagehacker cars are bad.
It is as simple as that. It sounds super-scientific when you use terms like "induced demand", but it is not, in fact, super-scientific. It's just a value judgement.
To me, if you build a highway in an area that has high traffic congestion, and after you build the highway, it still has high traffic congestion, it means more people are getting where they want to be. It's called "induced demand".
Induced demand is good. We should have more of it.
Since the 1950s, we have optimized for essentially the least efficient form of transit available. It seems completely bonkers to me that in the bay and other high density areas, you have many, many workers, particularly at the low end of the income scale, driving over an hour each way to work. It is an understandable and rational decision for the driver, but crazy to me for society.
I cannot comprehend why more firms aren’t embracing remote work more than they do. It helps alleviate a lot of these traffic challenges and can result in reduced carbon footprints as well as more happy employees. I hope we start considering remote work as a solution to some of these problems more in the future.
Ultimately the problem with anti-car rhetoric is that it seeks to limit access to the objective because it is "wrong" to use a self checkout lane and people must be forced to check books out in the morally correct manner.
No one (reasonable) has a problem with the library adopting a mobile checkout app, which let's call mass transit. But crippling self checkout to force adoption of the mobile checkout app could be at best described as a 'dark pattern', forcing people to check out books 'the right way' at the cost of overall readership.
If you have two checkouts, people will use whichever one is faster (assuming everything else is equal). Make one faster, and people will shift from one line to the other. Though, to make it an even better analogy, make one line shorter, and people will start coming in from off the street rather than switching lines.
A much better example - telecommuting. IF commute is bad, one is strongly incentivized to have some work-from-home days. If the commute time is improved, then that incentive disappears and one would then consider commuting daily.
Induced demand I think is generally all about the idea that when something is painful - people don't do it. Take away that pain point, and people come. I don't begrudge people too much for driving, as an example I'll note I do my errands on a bicycle. As such, I'm strongly incentivized to make many stops and fewer trips. Meanwhile, I've noticed that people in my family will make a car trip errand as soon as the need comes up. "Oh, I need to go to the grocery store." They get back, then realize they also needed to go to the hardware store, drive out again real quick and back when had there been more planning, the two trips could have been combined. Switching to a bike is an extreme example to avoid the excessive/unnecessary trips that are made simply because it is so convenient. If the drive time were tripled, then there might be a behavior shift to group errands together. Why do so though if it takes just a few minutes to make the individual trips? Eventually the cost of the trip is sufficient that a person will start conserving, avoiding that cost (which can be: travelling in off-hours, grouping trips together, not doing a trip altogether, finding a different mode of transport, removing the trip by moving, etc...)
The issue is with how many books are checked out a time. If the line is absurdly long, at some point you will make fewer trips to the library to avoid paying the cost of waiting in line. You would check out more books so you would go less frequently. You would be trading storage space at home in exchange for time (not having to wait in line). If the line were infinitely fast, then why not go to the library exactly after you have finished one book to then go get one new book.
If an automated checkout then exists, the line time would be less, making it less expensive to go to the library, which means a person would be willing to increase their trip frequency to the library. Suddenly, you have a line full of people all checking out exactly one book, and returning the next day to do the same thing again (rather than checking out one weeks worth of books, and coming back a week later instead of the next day).
First is that with frictionless checkout the library's efficiency is maximized (books are only checked out when being read and people's time isn't spent unproductively).
Second is that there is a limit to the demand of the library. A book will be finished before checking out a new one and a person can only read so many books a day. No matter how entertaining there is a fairly hard cap based on a persons need to sleep and reading rate. So a library would only ever need enough automated checkout lanes to match the populations awake time and reading rate before book demand is fully sated.
Though, I do think you might be overemphasizing the number of checkout lanes.
To torture the analogy, let's consider the variables at play:
- how often a person goes to the library
- how many books they check out at a time
- how long they wait to checkout (we can potentially include travel time with this number)
- how many books can a person use at a given time (can a person read 3 books at a time?)
- how fast a person consumes books
The variables of "how many times do you go to the library" and "how many books do you get each time", and the cost to do so - "the time to check out", I think are the 3 really interesting variables to demonstrate induced & latent demand. The others are a factor, but we can hold them constant in order to demonstrate the relationship of the other three. Specifically, latent demand are people who would rather not read at all rather than spend more time than X waiting to check out. If the time to check out decreases, some people will start making the trip - this is latent demand. If the time to check out decreases further, some people will start making multiple trips instead of just one - this is induced demand. The people making multiple trips are still checking out the same number of books, but there is demand for high frequency and not just an absolute number of books. The frequency provides flexibility and relieves other costs (carry capacity cost & storage cost).
For example, an expedition to antarctica would be very willing to pay a high cost to have a high carry capacity in order to transport a lot of food (they'll buy a literal boat to carry it) and another high cost to store it (storage space is not free). The expedition is willing to pay these costs because the cost to get more food is so high.
One can also ponder, why not get a lifetime supply of books from a library (ignoring late fees)? To one extent, fitting that many books in your arms and then getting them to your home, and then storing them are costs. Why do that when you could make another trip a week later?
Though, let's say for some reason you knew this was your last ever trip to a library. In this case, you would be highly incentivized to invest in higher carry capacity (eg: rent a truck) and to also invest in storage for the books. The really interesting part of induced demand is that typically for road resources, we are pretty well into the state where many people would prefer to make more trips than they do today. So when we think about the inverse, as travel costs go down, the incentives to carry more and store more go down - which results in more trips being made. As more trips are made by more people, congestion increases, which creates a balancing effect and a steady state of traffic congestion. Naturally, other factors can break the steady state, the fact there is this counter-balancing force is the (IMO) interesting part of induced demand.
To the specific example, removing self checkout lanes makes sense if the removal adds more value than the lanes were providing, but not if they are providing more value than their opportunity cost -- perhaps because of woefully understaffed registers and a buggy mobile checkout app the self-checkout machines are responsible for a large portion of checkouts. Which would make them counter productive to remove.
Give me a nice European sports car, a manual transmission, an empty highway and some nice scenery and commuting can be an incredibly relaxing experience. Even when I lived in the Bay Area commuting this way off-peak was awesome. In fact the commute was the highlight of my day.
The best way to have an empty highway is to reduce the number of people who are driving because they have to do so.
it's not that there's no benefit to the wider road or parking spots, just that the benefit people really care about -- less traffic and quicker trips, less time searching for a parking spot -- often fails to materialize.
But that's good if you wan't more people to drive downtown, isn't it? What am I missing here?
That downtown is now a concrete hellscape instead of a pleasant place to be. Your solution ensures that always happens, overall people prefer less infrastructure built for cars, but if it is there of course they will use it.
The Metra commuter rail in Chicago handles over 2.5 million trips per month.
59 percent of the people who commute to Manhattan do so via public transit.
Penn Station is the busiest transportation facility in the Western hemisphere, serving 600,000 passengers a day, primarily commuter rail and regional rail. And that’s just one station.
One subway tunnel with two tracks is equivalent to something like a 15 lane highway. That’s where highway expansion truly falls apart: it only really scales up to a small to mid-sized city before the land waste becomes a burden. Many mid-sized American downtowns waste close to half of their most valuable real estate on parking lots and structures.
I’ve seen the superimposed graphic that has floated around the Internet showing how some crazy amount of Manhattan would be a parking lots if it had the same parking minimums as a different mid-sized city. There literally wouldn’t be a midtown manhattan if they had to follow the same parking minimums that make highway-based single-occupant commuting practical.
Isn’t it wild that your car gets more space to spend the workday parked than you get at your desk?
I will also add that there are a decent amount of suburbs with walkable downtowns along those commuter rail networks where you can buy a condo or rent an apartment within walking distance of commuter rail and go downtown. Hell, you can live in downtown Milwaukee and commute to Chicago via rail if you really want to.
But the reality is that reducing car trips is really helpful to congestion and traffic for everyone, and having alternative options can make a lot of sense to a lot of people if they’re planned well.
If I take all my daily commutes in with the Metra but then my weekend trip to the city outside the business center is in a car, I still reduced my dependency on my car by huge percentage. That means more of my miles are being spent on safer, more energy efficient, less costly mass transit.
And anyway, you’re not really correct here in the first place. Chicago commuter rail stations downtown have easy connectivity to the L and numerous buses.
You just brazenly claim that nobody wants to transfer but it happens all the time.
Yes, it can take longer than driving…except when it doesn’t, because Chicago has two or three of the nation’s slowest highways. Metra plus a transfer is often a trivial difference in travel time, plus on the Metra you can relax, use the bathroom, and even legally drink a beer if you wish.
Many trips using the L plus Metra transfer are pretty competitive to drive times. Obviously it doesn’t work for every trip but doing a Metra ride plus a $10 Taxi ride will beat parking costs, plus you’re not operating and maintaining a personal vehicle.
Finally, for those who can’t drive at all or have difficulty doing so, having an option that’s slower or less convenient than driving is still a godsend. Being able to get somewhere via transit in 2 hours will beat a 1 hour car ride when the alternative is not taking the trip at all because you’re elderly or disabled and can’t drive yourself. If your car got totaled and you can’t afford a new one having a transit option solved the catch 22 of needing a job to pay for a car and needing a car to get to your job.
As an example, there are 12 different bus lines that are directly adjacent to Millennium Station. You barely even have to step outside to use them.
Hell, you don’t have to step outside at all to transfer from the blue or red line to Millennium station trains.
All loop CTA lines are a 10 minute walk to Union Station and Ogilvie.
You really think with these kind of stats that nobody is transferring?
Not to mention the fact that the Metra runs express trains during rush hour to high population suburbs. You can get from Downer’s Grove to non-downtown neighborhoods like Lincoln Park or Wrigleyville faster than a car during rush hour via express trains + purple line.
"it's not that there's no benefit to the wider road or parking spots, just that the benefit people really care about -- less traffic and quicker trips, less time searching for a parking spot -- often fails to materialize."
In short though, induced demand is somewhat simple. If it takes 10 minutes to drive and 30 minutes to take a bus, then I drive. If it takes 30 minutes to drive and 10 minutes to take a bus, then I take the bus. Eventually enough people choose to drive, or take a bus, that that mode becomes congested/inconvenient enough that people start making other choices. In other words, there are some people who avoid highways during rush hour because the traffic jams are bad. If the highway is widened, then they would join the rush hour once again and be part of the traffic jams. Induced demand is about taking away the reason why people avoid something, and thereby doing so they change their behavior to start doing that thing.
I would agree, at some point when all alternatives are equally unattractive (or non-existent), then going without is a more attractive option.
Though, the "consolidate" option is a big one to consider. Rather than going to the city every day, perhaps people could do so every other day for the same benefit. If traffic is bad, then people will go less often (frequency of travel is a function of cost). Thus, in some cases, highway expansion is filled by people that want to go to the grocery store every day rather than going once a week. Meanwhile, those that commute to work, are still going to do so because they have to. If the commute gets too bad, then some people will decide to move.
On the other side of the spectrum, at some point there are so many people that want to go into the city every day - you can't do it with single occupancy vehicles and roads. It's a scaling problem. For example, someone did an analysis of parking decks in Seattle and whether there were not enough of them. They found if there were all filled and everyone then tried to leave - it would take 2 days for all the vehicles to exit the city.
There are certainly many aspects to consider.
Roads are not only for commuting.
What can I do on public transit that people don't do in a car in traffic?
> What can I do on public transit that people *don't* do in a car in traffic?
was an intentional and funny word choice to include terrible drivers doing the things you listed.
See the problem is that they do, right before they drive into a pedestrian or stationary object.
Tell me, anti car fundamentalists, what are the odds that happens in a waymo?
Large groups of people are simply not safe, as police are not empowered to remove problem people.
You basically ensures your transit system will remain shitty forever, but that is easily fixable. The more good actors that use it the cheaper fixing it gets per person, you can have people who clean and security remove such bad actors at low cost since so small fraction are causing bad events or pissing where they shouldn't. Good people overwhelmingly outnumber bad people in the real world.
When was the last time you saw women avoid grocery stores because they are afraid of getting harassed? Well used public transit is that level, it isn't something women worry much about compared to many other much larger threats.
It’s clear that you don’t have much concern for the harassment experienced by those woman columnists you read, so I don’t think there much more I can say here. I imagine if you were to have any direct experience at all with the problem, your position would be different.
That all said: what’s your upside? What do you gain which you consider to be worth these women whom you do not know sacrificing their safety?
The argument must be (and, I believe, is) that induced demand for buses and trains is far cheaper to a society than induced demand for cars. Adding a train car at a peak time serves a lot more people than adding a highway lane at a peak time.
I'm actually curious to compare them.
Apparently, 100 people is a reasonable capacity for a train car (200 is possible for BART at rush hour). A lane of 100 single-occupancy cars in a traffic jam is about a third of a mile. So, an extra car lane a mile long is about an extra half a train, give it take.
The problem with this math is the last mile.
With a road network you have highways with multiple lanes and a lot of traffic, and those branch out into streets with fewer lanes but more destinations.
You can run a train next to the highway and it will achieve much more throughput, but as soon as you get to the offramp, what now? Those 100 passengers all have different destinations that fork off in every direction. You can't run 100 train cars one for each passenger, that's even worse than the road cars. But you also can't just dump them all right there, miles away from where they want to be.
The reason this works in NYC is the density. You can actually get 100 people who are all going to the same place at the same time. Which is also the only way to make it work anywhere else: Build higher density housing. It cannot work in the suburbs because there isn't enough density to run high-occupancy mass transit at a viable frequency.
Whereas in that environment having the occasional four or eight lane highway increases carrying capacity along more than its own length. The single-lane surface streets that branch off in every direction have a vast amount of otherwise unused carrying capacity, which a highway lane unlocks by connecting low-density destinations together. And which you can't unlock with mass transit because those destinations don't have the density for mass transit, even if the path directly parallel to the highway does.
The problem isn't cars or highways, it's zoning density restrictions.
> The single-lane surface streets that branch off in every direction have a vast amount of otherwise unused carrying capacity, which a highway lane unlocks by connecting low-density destinations together. And which you can't unlock with mass transit because those destinations don't have the density for mass transit, even if the path directly parallel to the highway does.
In a lot of suburbia, there are large parking lots near train stations. In theory, your point is a great advertisement for this setup. In practice, I never lived in a place where driving to the train station was convenient, but it's quite possible that is an accident. For one, parking lots have to be truly large to fit the number of people that would fit in a train car.
The primary existing problem is that high-density housing is prohibited through zoning, or made prohibitively expensive through other regulatory rules. It doesn't matter how much demand you generate if increasing supply is constrained by law. Whereas if you could fix the zoning and building codes then you wouldn't need to induce demand because demand is already there -- it's why housing is so expensive.
> There are many other considerations that need to be taken into consideration to make trains useful: frequency, right-of-way on road crossings (often a problem for light rail)
These are all density again. You get frequency by having enough passengers to fill the transit car on that interval, which you get from higher density. There is no point in sending a bus to carry one person to one house, it might as well be a car.
This is also why right of way and bus lanes are the wrong way to think about it. If you don't have enough density you're going to lose regardless and all the bus lane is going to do is make the traffic worse, because people can't take the bus if it doesn't go where they're going when they're going there and then you're just wasting a lane. Whereas if you do have the density then you still don't build a bus lane because instead you build a subway.
> In a lot of suburbia, there are large parking lots near train stations. In theory, your point is a great advertisement for this setup.
That's trying to have it both ways. If you have to drive to the train station then you have to buy a car and insure it and unless the parking at the train station is free you're now paying for parking. At this point people start wondering why they're hoofing it up to the train platform and paying for transit tickets and waiting for the train instead of just driving the rest of the way to their destination.
To fix this you need more people to live within walking distance of mass transit. Which is to say, you need to build higher density housing or allow mixed zoning so people can live closer to where they work.
Usually, it's because
1) the highway to their destination in the city center has too much traffic, and the train is faster, and
2) there's no parking at their destination, and no place to build it at any kind of affordable price.
Just look at Washington DC: tons of people commute by car to suburban train stations, pay a monthly fee to park in the big parking garages there, and then commute the rest of the way into the city center by train to work in government offices.
Cars and infrastructure for them is heavily subsidized so building more if it (giving free stuff away) induces more people to use it.
As car infrastructure has a cost which car drivers don't cover building more if it is very expensive for everyone else that's why we shouldn't want more if it.
Physical public goods, like public transport or public restrooms or sidewalks, are left filthy and full of hobos because enforcing basic laws is racist (in the critical race theory sense of disparate impact).
Social public goods, like norms related to civility and manners and integrity and competence, are actively attacked because one or the other of them impinges on someone's conception of freedom or justice.
It's not surprising that people don't want to expand the scope of public goods when we can't be trusted with the ones we've already inherited.
Edit: here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
How does demand for public transit produce it? I mean public calls for more transit have been loud for many years and US politicians have taken that as opportunity to tax more and produce garbage transit construction project that enrich their friends and fail to change the situation (see the "mystery" of the US not being able to build public transit).
Existing transit lines get pushed to their capacity, or reinvestment gradually helps snowball demand
My point is that growing demand for mass transit hasn't translated into anything.
When I lived in Northern Virginia however I experienced many disrupted or very slow trips due to issues with the DC Metro.
> when are they going to install automated gates on the platforms so people can't fall into the tracks?
Since most cities can’t afford to ever build their rail networks as comprehensively as the existing road network in even a small city, we are left with bussing to build that comprehensive network. And what do you know, if you look up most cities bus networks they look pretty good and high coverage. So why don’t people take them? Its still worse than a car. A car is a direct bus on your own schedule, a bus route is a compromised route of average population and job density, might not help you get to where you are going especially for drives outside a fixed commute to a central business district. Scheduling and especially transfers can be fickle.
As long as the coverage and convenience are so lopsided, people are going to take cars if they can afford it, even with a shiny new light rail line or whatever is attempted. I have yet to see a project like that attract wealthy ridership that can afford choice, transit rider median demographics are working class or even at the poverty line in a lot of metros. Even nyc subway ridership is 40k income on avg, bus ridership 28k. In the most expensive city in north america no less.
It is entirely a symptom of investment. Bus ridership was found to decline in large part because the actual amount of service hours had declined as well. https://humantransit.org/2015/06/pity-the-poor-city-bus-writ...
Canada has significantly higher bus ridership than the US despite having pretty similar urban forms and it is entirely due to the difference in services provided.
Seattle has seen noticeable increases in bus service hours and ridership from across income ranges, and the new rail extensions are performing similarly well.
This is almost completely the issue.
If I can count on a bus every 10 minutes, I will take a bus. If I can't just hop off a bus and back on the next because of long time intervals, I won't take a bus because I know something will go wrong and waste a huge chunk of my time.
The political problem is that you need to keep a bunch of empty buses running continuously in order to change the behavior of people to start taking those buses more often at which point they quit being empty.
The current problem is that in most places I have lived, I can WALK between points faster than I can take a bus. It will be 40-60 minutes between buses and because those buses are unreliable I can't count on my transfer, so I can wind up with a 2 hour+ bus ride for something which is less than 15 minutes by car.
I don't get how they think anyone can depend on that. Not only is an hour between busses incredibly frustrating, if I needed to do anything past 4pm, (like I don't know... commute to work?) I would have no way back home until the next day.
When big buses stop their routes the smaller ones would start.
The key is frequency and dependability.
But in general for public transportation I think running at a loss is not unreasonable. It's nice if it's profitable, but it's ok if it isn't. Hopefully it's reducing emissions, giving people who can't or don't want to drive reliable access to their employment, etc. is still worth it.
New York City tried replacing its dial-a-ride accessibility public transit service that required 24h advance appointments with an e-hailing subsidy and blew out its budget. https://www.thecity.nyc/2023/06/22/mta-paratransit-ehailing-...
Transit systems need to be about twice as fast, comfortable and convenient as car options to be competitive, and in the US political and operating environment of the last 100 years, it's not happening. Suburbs broke two major rent-seeking dominances-- urban property owners AND transit unions. Together those actors preserve a terrible experience and the path to a car-free future is doubtful precisely because it would require overcoming those social groups in addition to solving major technical and capital problems.
Compare this to Japan, where transit is still going strong because the highways must recoup revenues via tolls.
One huge difference between the US and Japan here is parking. Having a car is one thing, but where are you going to park it when you arrive at your destination? If you're driving between two towns or smaller cities, this might not be an issue, but if you're driving between Yokohama and Tokyo, it probably is. The car is only a feasible choice if you're traveling between points where there's a place for you to park. So of course, this drives a lot of traffic onto the trains and keeps ridership very high.
This is entirely a policy choice. America subsidizes parking by requiring very high parking per place, and since they’re required to build it anyways and there is so much supply it is always free.
Japan does not subsidize parking like this, in fact quite the opposite. There is no free street parking and to buy a car you need proof of a parking spot to store it in, and parking is more of a market as a result.
Many cities, including Columbus, are expanding bus rapid transit and other bus related activities which is laudable, but to your point, and which I agree and would frame it slightly differently, the bus is a strictly worse version of the car in these kinds of cities and so you need category changes to change habits (trams, bikes, walking).
I think we need to focus our efforts on cities like Columbus, or others, which do have the population to support rail development and solve for that and not get too worried about solving everything everywhere all at once.
Most state departments of highways and cars (they are not departments of transportation) simply don’t fund alternative means of transportation. Leadership from the top down needs to change its focus. The mantra should be the best, safest car is the one you never get in. Instead it’s “we need to preserve going from here to there in 20 minutes without traffic surprises” as if not being stuck in traffic is a Constitutional right. It’s bankrupting us and it’s bad for business and wellbeing.
You can change that by giving them their own lane so they don't get stuck in traffic with the cars, let them go where cars may not go, give priority at traffic lights etc. That is what they do where I live.
I feel like we are in agreement. It might not be enough but it is necessary. Problem is we don't even have enough political capital to enforce this. Bill deBalsio the ex mayor of New York came on a radio show and said (paraphrasing) he can't order cops to ticket cars and trucks that are loading or unloading in the bus lane. The bus lane is NOT a business' property for loading and unloading, especially not at busy hours. I'd you must do so, do it when there is no traffic in the middle of the night.
How can we do more when we can't even do the bare minimum?
The problem is that you're proposing a new problem rather than a solution.
Suppose there are two car lanes and they're somewhat congested. You suggest converting one to a bus lane to encourage people to take the bus. The result is to make the remaining car lane disproportionately more congested, because the bus lane gets 10% of people to take the bus and the other car lane is now 105% over capacity instead of 15% over capacity.
Your theory is that this will cause enough people to take the bus to make this problem go away, but that theory only works if it doesn't. If people taking the bus relieves the congestion then the car lane is uncongested and there is no more reason to take the bus.
So let the car lane be interminably congested, you say. Force people to take the bus. Only the bus doesn't service all destinations, or doesn't run there often enough (because if it did it would be empty), so the bus is no option for those people no matter how bad the car traffic gets. At which point they're prepared to boil you alive for making the traffic worse without giving them any viable alternative to it.
You need to make their lives better, not worse, or you can't win.
From what I’ve seen in my own reading and world travels is that you have to just stop expanding the roads or working on them outside of necessary maintenance and such. Add bike and bus lanes, make the car lanes smaller (safely) and then let people sort out whether it’s worth it to drive. Finding ways to tax the ever living hell out of or zone away surface parking lots should help too.
Whenever a department of “transportation” or city/regional officials get together in a room to discuss these topics, there should be very little if any discussion about how changes affect drivers.
A couple of important aspects:
Once buses are frequent enough, people don't need to worry about the timetable and will just get the next one. Edinburgh's main arterial routes have frequent enough buses to achieve this, even if not every bus goes to the same ultimate destination. Some of the busier bus lines have frequent enough buses all by themselves.
This does mean that there are lots of empty buses off-peak, this may seam wasteful but it's a necessary component of a functional transit system.
We also have a number of "bus gates", as well as bus lanes, with cameras to prevent other vehicles from using bus-only lanes. This lets buses go through residential areas without making them rat runs for car drivers.
Buses and trams (especially trams!) can take a lot more people than cars. If everyone who gets the bus tried to take a car instead then no-one would get anywhere.
And we also give free bus travel to young people, old people, and anyone with a medical condition that means they can't drive.
A combination of a smartphone and free bus travel gives my disabled daughter a lot more freedom than she'd otherwise be able to enjoy.
The last time I went through there driving, it took almost 20 mins to go 2-3 miles due to traffic (and stop lights), obviously during rush hour. The buses were still nearly empty (I wished I didnt have to drive that day). At a non-rush hour time, it takes me maybe 20 mins for my whole trip home which is about 9 miles.
My point, I guess, is it's not always just having a free bus lane. There are a lot of people that need convincing to take buses and alternative transportation. A few of my coworkers wish they could take the bus/train, but having kids in school and other things make it a bit harder for them.
Maybe one day...
You take the bus so this goes without saying but, let's say a bus is mostly empty and has 8 people inside. If you were to put those 8 people into individual cars, you'd make the road a lot more crowded. I think a lot of folks look at these mostly-empty buses and don't realize that most cars are mostly-empty also (average 1.5 occupants / car in most of the US, honestly probably lower in the LA area due to its sheer car centricity.) But of course if you're in a car you're more likely to view another driver as "someone like you" while you look at the bus and think of it as a waste of space and taxpayer money.
That only answers where new development should go. It does nothing whatsoever for the people who already live in neighborhoods with no (useful) access to public transit.
[1] Car-only infrastructure isn’t viable economically but it’s hard to make that argument in this context because it’s the default and the costs are hidden.
In small and midsized cities, driving a car takes less time, likely 1/2 to 1/3rd the time of taking a bus.
Lastly, there’s the sense of control over personal space. When you’re on a bus, you do not control who gets on the bus with you. When you’re in a car, you have total control.
I'm not saying that NYC is actually cheaper than San Diego - I'm aware it's incredibly expensive but I think that all the cities are more similar than they are not as far as unaffordability goes
That actually really surprised me but it does make sense once thought about - goes against everything I've been taught tho. How can San Diego be as expensive as NYC?
doesn't agree with that. It says cost of living in San Diego is almost 40% lower than living in Manhattan. it pulls from ACCRA.
San Diego would probably be better compared to the Bronx, SI or Queens, maybe. But again, it depends on where in SD that person lived. Heck, you can move inland to Kearney Mesa and still find a home under $1M, hopefully. It's been a minute since I was down there.
Also, I feel that the website/ACCRA is trustworthy, but why lump Los Angeles and Long Beach together when every borough in NYC is separate? Doesn't make sense to me. Long Beach is as independent of L.A. as the boroughs are to each other.
Two ways to fix that (in general): improve one side, or worsen the other. Some measures do both simultaneously, eg. bus lanes take away asphalt for cars and improve bus infrastructure.
It's fairly easy to make a bus network more convenient than a car in a city. You can easily take measures such as dedicated bus lanes, one way streets, pedestrian areas, narrower streets + wider pavements and cycle lanes, less and more expensive parking.
The current attractiveness of public transport is roughly how attractive cars should have been. But most US cities have focused for decades on making car use more attractive. Congratulations, it worked.
Plus, if there is plenty of room then you'll still have parking, until that land becomes more valuable for something else.
I hear what you are saying but my town is more or less in accessible and a suburb to know where. We don't uber and taxi's after dark should be considered ahead of time. We have minimal mass transit system that essentially connects towns together. If we ever get train service from a metropolitan city I could see it.
Currently I see the people demanding reduced parking requirements as echoing talking points they don't understand.
No need for a car for most journeys.
New England towns used to be very neighborhood centric. Our town used to have 14 schools because everyone had to walk to school. Our schools have been centralized and now require busing.
Walkability used to be a thing but no longer. Off street parking is convenient during snow removal.
Where I'm from (New Zealand) a 2500 person town would be 1/4 acre suburban sections with wide streets surrounding some shops. eg this place:
The town was developed around walking but our modern infrastructure has eliminated the practicalities.
My only point is that parking minimums shouldn’t be thought of as universal solution.
There is even a big shared carpark for the built-up area so individual shops don't need to provide parking.
Whereas in North Adams the aerial view shows the (I assume mandated) carparks are pretty empty. I'll bet a few landlords would love to have more buildings and less carparks
Remember when you say "our modern infrastructure has eliminated the practicalities" you pretty much mean everything is designed for cars.
I'm not saying it is not cyclable. When managed to get a bike path built all the way to North Adams. The neighborhood argued against using the easement on their properties and caused a multi-year delay and 2 mile diversion of the bike path.
I'm saying that the entire environment is built around cars. The entire notion that limiting parking for apartment buildings will help housing costs is backwards. People need access to groceries all year round and if the closest grocery store is in North Adams it is too soon to worry restricting parking.
North Adams on the other hand has a really weird relationship to cars and the destruction of the local economy.
Sometime in the past 50 years some central planner decided that have Route 2 run through North Adams downtown was inconvenient. The fix was to tear down all the buildings on Main Street and replace them with an overpass and Route 2 can then run through straight through with only a couple of stop lights.
This plus the loss of factory jobs decimated the economy local economy in the late 70's. When I move to the area in the 2001 they had the highest teen pregnancy rate in at least Massachusetts.
MassMoca is a contemporary art museum meant to lift North Adams and I would say after 25 years it is showing some traction with the local economy. North Adams is the best place for housing in the area. The downtown has everything one needs including affordable housing. North Adams doesn't need to build more parking. If the trolly that used to connect Williamstown to North Adams still existed that may change my position on parking in Williamstown.
My Mom was anti-car and growing up in Florida we could do anything we needed in Gainesville on foot, bike, or bus. When we moved north to Pennsylvania Dutch country we got a car.
I'm surprised by your diligence and I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have.
By removing the mandated private space for storing vehicles, you increase the public space used to store vehicles.
Maybe in Japan or Europe it's better. In the US, public transit has a far from stellar history.
Imagine telling your kid to mow the lawn, and he deliberately does a terrible job so you quit asking him to do it. That’s what legislators have been doing to US public services for fifty years. It’s the same thing with the post office, they are wretched by design.
Depends on activities, I guess, but my experience is the opposite, densely populated areas has vastly more activities available within 20-30 minutes reach especially to parents with kids.
As someone that lived in Manhattan for many years as an adult all I could think of doing was restaurants, bars, broadway shows and walks in Central Park.
There are many opinions, of course.
Subsidise what you want and tax what you don’t is pretty popular, based on what people actually do.
If a place is nice, more people move there, and then the infrastructure is overburdened? but momentum just makes things end up bad in the end.
What about finding ways to distribute the population more broadly, by say fighting return-to-office kinds of things? Maybe taxing dense populations somehow?
On the other hand, does fighting all this like colorado is doing - does it make colorado less competitive?
If anything we should tax low density, since more infrastructure is needed per person.
I live in the Boston area and commute by car. My commute by car (despite the recent closure of a lane on the most heavily trafficked road on my commute, for no reason other than to not have it) is between 25 and 45 minutes. The fastest I can pull it off by public transit is an hour, with a long tail up to 1h20m or more in case of shutdowns, etc. I’d gladly take public transit if I could even meet my worst-case commute time consistently, but the worsening of my life by doubling my average commute time far outweighs the benefit of being a little greener and not having to pay attention to driving during my commute.
In other areas of the economy we wouldn’t consider inducing demand for alternative remedies by making the way average person operates worse. It becomes quite dystopian in my opinion. For instance, one could argue that too many people are seeking healthcare rather than pursuing lifestyle changes to improve their health, due to the availability of healthcare, so we should shut down hospitals. Or one could argue that the presence of housing induces demand for housing and so we should stop building new houses while providing no additional place for people to live. That will just create homelessness and/or very expensive housing. Both of these solutions will lower demand, but in a quite painful way for many people.
To me the solution which makes far more sense is to build improved public transit and people will naturally gravitate toward it, reducing demand for roads/cars, AND their quality of life will improve. For instance, if Boston expanded the MBTA with the long-sought-after urban ring project [1], my commute would reduce to perhaps 30-35 minutes by train. At that point it would be an absolute no brainer for me to switch all my commutes to public transit.
This is a rare situation where almost everyone really can win. Easier, cheaper, faster, greener travel. I don’t see why people argue for an approach where the majority of people lose.
The authorities seem to be quite happy with an outcome that means poor people will just have to travel a lot less. Do you think this will be greatly different in the US?
With public transport there are two elements. The capital expenditure and the operational expenditure. Why do you think someone who walks and bike everywhere should pay increased taxes to subsidise empty buses running around the place?
Because the cost of living in a society is helping to drive that society forward, even though you personally aren't benefiting from every dollar spent. Would that same person balk at paying emergency services, even if they aren't the ones riding an ambulance or getting help from a cop?
But even more importantly, the whole issue of cost is misplaced, imo. It's all based on millage, which ends up meaning public transport costs less than $20/year to maintain. There's no reason I'm ever going to complain about $20/year to keep buses running, and I look very questioningly at people who do complain about it. It's so small, I feel like they're making proxy arguments, or don't understand how millage works.
What population density do you need to sustain a 15 minute service from point A to point B on a Sunday at 6am? Or 9pm?
At some point it becomes far more efficient to simply provide on demand service.
Because putting people on the bus who would otherwise park their cars where the bike lane is or the sidewalk, is a good deal for you!
Also because the people on the bus pay taxes for your bike lanes & sidewalks. (If only bikers paid for the bike lanes, your taxes would probably be much higher than what you pay to subsidize buses.)
Also because the majority of people don’t bike & walk everywhere.
Also because there are rain days.
Also because we’re all in this together.
This is a question that can be applied to a lot of things, with deleterious results. Why would a person with no kids pay increased taxes to subsidize schools? Never sick but subsidizing hospitals? Not retired but subsidizing someone else's pension? Any kind of spending that you don't benefit from explicitly, directly, and instantly deserves the same question, right?
You're living in a society, the well being of the society reflects on your well being. People being more educated or healthier makes society better for you too. People having the option to take public transport to work because it's more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper (so for some it's the only option) and thus keep that job also makes society better for you.
If your logic is "pay only for what you use" then the one day when you need to use any of that "subsidized" infrastructure of services it might just cost more than you'll ever afford.
That road you ride/walk on, the park that gives you some fresh air, or the electricity that keeps your computer running were brought to you by someone who probably received subsidized education, healthcare, and public transport to get to work.
P.S. All those big fans of Thatcher's "[socialist governments] always run out of other people's money" aren't actually against subsidies, only against the ones that don't predominantly benefit them. Subsidy for the parking spot I need is good, subsidy for the public transport I don't need is bad.
And more generally, everyone voting only in their narrow self-interest is not "democracy working correctly". As numerous people have pointed out above, we live in a society and not everything that society needs to function well will benefit each and every person. Democracy working correctly does not mean everyone saying "I oppose any public spending that does not directly accrue a benefit to me personally". That's a recipe for a broken society with a great deal of deal being left behind.
Have you actually talked to American voters? No, mass transit isn't directly on the ballot, but in most places, it's not a popular thing. Americans, by and large, like their cars, and really don't like public transit. The more liberal ones might give it some lip service, but they generally avoid it if they can afford to. More importantly, Americans don't want the changes needed to make it more feasible, namely higher density and a lack of free parking everywhere.
If you don't believe me about American voters, just read the other comments in this discussion.
>It's readily apparent when it comes to things like building housing
Again, people say they want more housing built, but they don't actually want to make the changes needed for this to be done. They don't want to remove zoning restrictions that prevent housing from being built in places where it's really needed to make cities more walkable and make transit work better.
>And more generally, everyone voting only in their narrow self-interest is not "democracy working correctly".
This is absolutely wrong. Democracy isn't some magical thing that produces the best possible result when done the best way. It's a product of the voters and their whims and demands, no matter how stupid or ignorant they may be.
>we live in a society and not everything that society needs to function well will benefit each and every person
If you want a society where people vote outside their narrow self-interest, you need voters who understand this and vote accordingly. If you're assuming most humans are like this, you're sadly mistaken.
>Democracy working correctly does not mean everyone saying "I oppose any public spending that does not directly accrue a benefit to me personally".
Yes, it does, if you have a population of voters who think exactly this way.
Also, I assume that for consistency you would say someone who never cycles should not pay increased taxes to pay for things like cycle lanes? Do you think we should make no provision for cycling, or introduce a road tax on bicycles to pay for it?
I needed to show a passport (perhaps any photo ID would have worked, but still WTF?) to get the train from Davis to Sacramento, the trains were not particularly frequent, and that's the equivalent distance of Petersfield to Portsmouth & Southsea:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Davis,+California,+USA/Sacra...
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Petersfield,+UK/Portsmouth+a...
I'm not poor, I love travelling (and travel a lot), and I don't even have a driver's license. You don't need to drive to travel, at least in Europe.
Almost everywhere it actually works, mass transit is heavily subsidised, with tickets covering only 20-30% of the operating expenses.
Now it costs $40 to launch a sailboat at my local reservoir. Even state camping spots are $40+ it seems in areas I know aren't full all the time.
It costs like $20 in extra gas tax to drive to LA with your friends because California can't just set the income tax appropriately?
I could go on and on. The income tax to me sounds pretty fair. But making a poor person living paycheck to paycheck come up with $40 to go to the lake with a cheap sailboat seems harsh to me (my dad and I used to go as a Kid. It was $5 then. And my dad made $20 an hour as a recent immigrant in construction).
And don't start that people that use services should pay. My tax money goes to a lot of things I don't use or even agree with.
If you can afford a sailboat, you're not "low income".
We had one when my mom was cleaning a convalescent home as her job, and commuting 35 miles one way to do it.
My dad worked 55+ hours a week, and commuted 60 miles one way to do it.
So unless you think my dad let my mom clean hospital floors and bathrooms while we weren't low income, I'd argue you can.
Obviously it's not some keeled ocean going vessel you keep at the marina.
But let's use your version.. a tiny boy scout dingy you can lift by yourself and put in the water. Should it cost $40 to put that in the water?
A few folks in the comments have mentioned a couple of times that it doesn't make sense to make a policy like this without supporting transit. I believe the argument would be that not creating induced demand will provide market effects to encourage the use of transit, which would then create greater demand for improved transit.
Similarly for housing, the well substantiated claim from modern urban planners is that we've been prioritizing housing for cars well beyond housing for people, and the best solution for that is to overturn minimum parking requirements and unbundle the cost of parking from the cost of housing.
Personally, I still find these opinions somewhat counterintuitive. The weirdest part about it is that it all posits that the solution to a centralized planning problem is market solutions, and it's coming from people you'd expect to have the opposite opinion. However, what we've had in terms of transportation clearly doesn't work for people and for the environment, and the last 20 years of "Shoupism" has shown some serious promise in terms of reversing the trend.