Here’s an interesting piece on the reasons we don’t see congestion pricing in use. Here are the top-line bullets:
- No One Cares (congestion is not so bad that we can’t live with it)
- Equity Considerations (congestion pricing is regressive)
- Congestion Pricing Suffers from a Mismatch Between Economic and Political Efficiency (economists don’t call the political shots)
- Congestion Pricing Lacks a Powerful Advocate
An interesting read…
48 responses to “Why We Don’t Use Congestion Pricing”
Kinda funny.
Really sad.
Congestion being an excuse of people, and a lack of pricing being a facet of people not understanding economics, and if they do, not wanting to accept the responsibility of the prices they incur on themselves and in turn on everyone else.
… :( It’s rather depressing really.
Fortunately I got a good day of work to look forward to that isn’t posed with such insipid questions. :)
“Congestion Pricing” is simply rationing available space for the benefit of the well-to-do at the expense of the rest of us. We don’t “do it” because it’s unacceptable to the majority of us once people figure it out.
When politicians and the libertarian “economists” try and sneak this scheme by under the radar, there is always a backlash of opposition.
Check out the growing opposition to the rising tolls on the toll roads around D.C. and into Virginia.
They don’t call the “Lexus lanes” for nothing. It’s just another screw the poor scheme (Im suprized so many “progressives” go for it.)
We build our water, sewer, power and phone systems for peak loads and we can do the same for roads if we quit wasting money on toy trains that only remove 1/4 of one lane’s worth of commuters from the roads. (per Triment data, allowing for the fact that 2/3 of MAX riders would be on a bus)
see: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers.htm
Thanks
JK
He swings and misses at most of the points.
1) No one cares
He misses the essential point. People who care enough don’t create congestion. Congestion is only an immediate problem for people who don’t care enough. And congestion is a relatively small contributor to the external costs of people driving.
2) Equity
He considers congestion an economics problem and he suggests that poor people generally value their time less than wealthy people do. But this isn’t really true. Everyone gets the same number of hours in a day. What poor people value more is their money, because it is scarcer.
3) Political Efficiency
The point of congestion pricing is to force people who won’t or can’t pay off the road for the benefit of those that will. That is quite different than asking people to pay a toll for the cost of a facility they use.
4) Congestion Pricing Lacks a Powerful Advocate
The problem is that congestion pricing is largely a captive of two groups. Economists who think “value” and “money” are synonyms and transportation engineers/planners who want a way to pay for their new projects.
As Russell Sadler makes clear their version of congestion pricing is:
“simply rationing available space for the benefit of the well-to-do at the expense of the rest of us.”
The key to congestion pricing is that the money the well-to-do pay needs to go into value for the rest of us who don’t. The question for most of us is “what is in it for me?”
The answer to that question is nothing. And until they start talking about how they are going to give that toll money to the rest of us in compensation for the time we lose, no one is going to buy into congestion pricing. Nor should they.
They don’t call the “Lexus lanes” for nothing. It’s just another screw the poor scheme (Im suprized so many “progressives” go for it.)
We build our water, sewer, power and phone systems for peak loads and we can do the same for roads if we quit wasting money on toy trains that only remove 1/4 of one lane’s worth of commuters from the roads. (per Triment data, allowing for the fact that 2/3 of MAX riders would be on a bus)
see: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers.htm
Thanks
JK
The point of congestion pricing is to force people who won’t or can’t pay off the road for the benefit of those that will. That is quite different than asking people to pay a toll for the cost of a facility they use.
I’ll disagree. Roads are a public good, and they are the primary provider of access to, well, everything. Everyone put in equally to build the roads, and priving for use after the fact seems to be less than equitable. If the public wants to build a toll road, or sell of an existing road to a private entity, it’s their right to make that mistake.
More important, tho, is this: Portland isn’t London or New York. Portland ain’t even Seattle. There is no congestion downtown, there should be no congestion charge. When it takes 45 minutes to cross downtown, then we can talk congestion charge.
trains that only remove 1/4 of one lane’s worth of commuters from the roads
Do you factor all of the buses that are taken off the road because of MAX? Basically, on the Banfield (I-84) and the Sunset (US 26) there were 3 traffic lanes (including buses) and now there are 3 traffic lanes (no buses) plus MAX. Everyone who switches to MAX is taken off the roads, regardless of which vehicle they formerly used.
As for congestion pricing, airlines, Amtrak, etc do something similar–increase rates as demand increases. However, I’d first like to see motorists pay for their parking, pollution cleanup and other things that encourage them to drive.
Except for a few spots at a few times, Portland is just not very congested. We have a moderately busy, mid-sized and not particulary dense city with plenty of capacity for most trips. All the congestion handwringing is just a campaign for more money for more roads to keep us choking to death on our own waste and more dependent on Middle East oil.
russell,
i disagree that the only beneficiares of congestion pricing are the “well-to-do”, we all benefit from cleaner air, fewer greenhouse emissions, and higher productivity due to less time wasted sitting idle on the freeway.
it’s certainly worth discussing if congestion pricing is the best, or fairest way to manage those issues. but the rationing that you mention is going to happen no matter what; either time based, or cost based.
All the congestion handwringing is just a campaign for more money for more roads to keep us choking to death on our own waste and more dependent on Middle East oil.
Lenny –
I think this is overstating the issue. Highway 99W, I5 at the Interstate bridge, Highway 217 and I205 between I5 and the Banfield all have more congestion than desirable at certain times of the day. You can probably add a few other locations as well.
A congestion pricing operation that tolled these and spent the money on alternatives for people who don’t want to pay the toll would be a better solution than chasing after congestion relief by adding road capacity. Whether you can make the alternatives attractive enough is really the question.
Jim said:
“We build our water, sewer, power and phone systems for peak loads”
Actually, the water system isn’t just built for peak demand, it is built for peak demand plus fire flow. This would be like building the freeways so that they flowed at 60 mph at rush hour, and then had an entire extra freeway just for emergency vehicles. The reason we can even afford to do this is because water pipes are very cheap compared to the cost of digging the holes to put them in, so this doesn’t add much to the cost of the system…
However, I don’t know if you noticed, but our sewers weren’t built for peak flow so they spill into the river when it rains, and we need to fix it, but it is costing billions so they are giving discounts to people that disconnect their downspouts, which is basically the same as charging people that leave them connected, i.e. a congestion charge.
Out power grid has trouble too. Most residences pay the same price for power 24 hours a day, but larger customers don’t, and residences can sign up for a variable rate too. (I saved $23 over the regular rates last month by having my hot water heater only heat water at night and doing my laundry on Sundays…) Again, people are basically paying a congestion charge. (And sometimes that isn’t enough, and the power company has rolling blackouts.)
And my cell phone is free after 9pm, but I use up plan minutes beforehand, again a congestion charge of sorts. (And even so, Sunday afternoon in the south parks blocks, there just wasn’t enough lines to go around, I tried to call someone, and immediately got a busy signal.)
Congestion Pricing is a regressive option, that suggests that people trying to get to work, the commuter, in the AM or PM peak period rush hours should pay more for their work ethic and desire to provide for their families.
We have a special class of companies who do not pay any Metro area, Transit Payroll Excise Tax. As a result we do not have enough money to build out our transit system to where our commuters can have access to a transit system that can get commuters can reliably to their jobs.
I would estimate that 80% plus of the commuters in our AM and PM Peak Period Rush Hours have NO other realistic choice then to use our roads and highways to get to their employment.
There are a lot of marginalized jobs and people who work multiple jobs just to feed their families and you want them to go on Welfare, I don’t think so!
I think that the issue of Congestion Pricing has thus far been implemented in two very different ways, which should perhaps be considered differently:
1) Cordon-style district congestion pricing, ala London and Stockholm
2) Peak period variable tolling of specific lanes on a freeway — so-called High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes.
The first could potentially be implemented in Portland for an area encompassing the 1990s-era Fareless Square district (before this district was expanded across the river to include Lloyd Center). This district generally has the most surface street daytime traffic congestion in the city. The revenue could be used to help improve transit service for the district, by paying for some capital costs for new streetcars/LRVs, as well as the additional operational costs associated with these vehicles. More bicycle facilities could also be constructed leading into and within the district. Presumably, this would encourage many folks to stop driving and start taking transit or riding their bicycles to enter the district.
The second idea could be implemented on Portland’s freeway system, and indeed, this does make some sense when taken in tandem with the idea of removing I-5 from the east bank of the Willamette. I-405, I-26 through the tunnels, I-84 through Sullivan’s Gulch and I-5 through NoPo and the Terwilliger Curves could all have congestion pricing applied to them. This charge could help pay for the capital costs associated with the removal of I-5, and perhaps then with the capping of the freeways and the building of parks, bike lanes and neighborhood centers on top of them. Call it a citywide freeway mitigation program.
What the program needs, apparently, is a strong advocate to make it happen.
Commissioner Sam Adams… are you listening?
cheers,
~Garlynn
I read this blog a lot. I read these types of comment entries and I almost get outright depressed.
The fact of how many people want everyone else to foot the bill by force is insane. The number of people that don’t seem to understand that economic activity IS representative of what people want is even more unbelievable.
The fact that so many on this blog, who generally has many intelligent readers, outright denies the direct correlation between worth, money, value, economic activity, freedom of choice, options, and livestyles is unbelievable.
Most of the readers on this bog also want to protect the environment and limit road access and blagh blagh blagh. If congestion pricing isn’t a great example of doing just that in a logical way, please, someone else put forth a good idea.
…and please, no let’s build 18 lanes BS solution. Realistic examples.
…on the Banfield… there were 3 traffic lanes (including buses) and now there are 3 traffic lanes (no buses) plus MAX. Everyone who switches to MAX is taken off the roads, regardless of which vehicle they formerly used.
Actually, on the Banfield, buses still use the 3 traffic lanes, as C-TRAN routes 164-Fishers Landing Express and 177-Evergreen Express use the Banfield to Downtown Portland, and from it if I-84 and I-205 traffic is better than I-5 northbound in the evening.
Those riders pay $3 a ride or $105/mo. for the privilege, even though they could use 165-Parkrose Express for $2.25 and board the MAX Red Line at Parkrose/Sumner TC, or use a regular All-Zone TriMet ($74) or C-TRAN ($78) pass.
The number of people that don’t seem to understand that economic activity IS representative of what people want is even more unbelievable.
Adron –
There are lot of things money can’t buy. Just ask people who have an unlimited supply.
Congestion pricing is yet another form of government controlled social engineering that separates the affluent class who can afford to pay from the people that can not afford the expense. Therefore congestion priced toll lanes can also be called ”Lanes of Discrimination”.
i love how “libertarians” like terry and jim always turn into socialists when it comes to anything related to to cars. (though the only real libertarian here, adron, is one of the biggest train/rail advocates)
How about congestion pricing for transit use? While the current political socially engineered mindset is that traffic congestion during peak periods on highways is acceptable, the transit systems are uploaded regularly to meet peak demand with extra equipment and operators placed into service at heavy travel times like rush hours. Therefore, instead of taxpayers subsidizing this extra service demand, peak period transit fares could be priced at a level that exceeds the costs of providing the service. Pricing peak period transit fares in this manner could then offset the low ridership lines and the current high percentage of taxpayer subsidies transit riders now take for granted. Furthermore, higher peak period fares could be viewed as a preliminary first step to make transit service financially self-sustainable. Transit passengers would then be required to start accepting the financial responsibility for their own mobility instead of having transit funding poached from other sources, including the targeted depletion of highway funds.
I think that the issue of Congestion Pricing has thus far been implemented in two very different ways, which should perhaps be considered differently:
1) Cordon-style district congestion pricing, ala London and Stockholm
2) Peak period variable tolling of specific lanes on a freeway — so-called High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes.
The first could potentially be implemented in Portland for an area encompassing the 1990s-era Fareless Square district (before this district was expanded across the river to include Lloyd Center). This district generally has the most surface street daytime traffic congestion in the city. The revenue could be used to help improve transit service for the district, by paying for some capital costs for new streetcars/LRVs, as well as the additional operational costs associated with these vehicles. More bicycle facilities could also be constructed leading into and within the district. Presumably, this would encourage many folks to stop driving and start taking transit or riding their bicycles to enter the district.
The second idea could be implemented on Portland’s freeway system, and indeed, this does make some sense when taken in tandem with the idea of removing I-5 from the east bank of the Willamette. I-405, I-26 through the tunnels, I-84 through Sullivan’s Gulch and I-5 through NoPo and the Terwilliger Curves could all have congestion pricing applied to them. This charge could help pay for the capital costs associated with the removal of I-5, and perhaps then with the capping of the freeways and the building of parks, bike lanes and neighborhood centers on top of them. Call it a citywide freeway mitigation program.
What the program needs, apparently, is a strong advocate to make it happen.
Commissioner Sam Adams… are you listening?
cheers,
~Garlynn
Terry –
In fact, there are many places in the country where transit fares vary depending on the time of day. On the other hand, encouraging people to drive their own car instead of taking transit seems like a poor idea. Although it would be nice to be guranteed a seat on the bus at rush hour.
In fact, there are many places in the country where transit fares vary depending on the time of day.
Seattle is one.
King County Metro is also experiencing record bus ridership.
Oh, King County Metro only operates busses. It doesn’t operate light rail or commuter rail (although Sound Transit, a completely separate agency, does; and light rail is being built.)
Seattle also has a better freeway system with HOV lanes, express lanes, wider highways, a better emergency response system, a better ITS system.
While we are debating the future of the Interstate Bridge, Seattle has many more (and large) waterways that are spanned – the West Seattle Bridge, the Mercer Island Floating Bridge, the Lake Washington Floating Bridge, the Aurora Viaduct, the Ship Canal Viaduct… And Seattle residents approved a gas tax increase a few years ago.
Oh, Seattle’s bus system also has been largely renewed in the last few years – and includes a mix of hybrid, electric, and diesel busses from mini-busses to 60′ articulated busses.
http://www.economist.com/cities/briefing.cfm?city_id=LDN
Small news blurb from the Economist on London’s congestion pricing.
Seattle also has a better freeway system
If you like sitting in congestion. Seattle is a much larger and different city but I don’t think many people would choose it’s transportation system over Portland’s.
Ah yes, I remember the day shortly after the massive new I-90 bridge to Mercer Island opened; we were traveling back to Seattle to catch the train to Portland and looked over to see bumper to bumper stopped traffic in the outbound lanes…what a wonderful way to blow a $Billion plus. No thanks.
Congestion pricing is not likely to catch on in Portland as it is a moderately busy, mid-sized city with short commmutes and not much congestion, except for a few points for relatively short times. As it grows up, instead of out, the developing transit, bike and walk infrastructure will accommodate more and more people at rather low cost…more bike lanes (cheap), more trails (relatively cheap) and more transit vehicles (buses and rail cars)…the least cheap. We can put all the money we don’t waste on roads into schools and a real research university. Portland…the world’s biggest small town.
dangit, apologies *again* for double-posting. I try to reload the page to see other folk’s comments, and it instead re-loads and attempts to re-post my previous comment! D’oh!
Garlynn –
If you subscribe to RSS feeds, PortlandTransport has a “comments” feed with all the latest comments to all of the posts… sometimes it gets 5-15 minutes behind the action, but it is there.
Alternately, be sure to click through to the homepage first (which has a “latest comments” sidebar) and then do your refreshing.
– Bob R.
Erik said “Seattle also has a better freeway system with HOV lanes, express lanes, wider highways, a better emergency response system, a better ITS system.”
I was just up between Tacoma and Seattle this past Saturday. And yes, King County does have better highways; 4 to 5 lanes wide on I-5 plus the HOV lane. Not like Portland that only has three lanes and then steals one of them to make an HOV lane. Apparently they understand the need for increased motor vehicle capacity while Portland/Metro does not.
There are many differences between Portland and Seattle, but since the comparison has been raised in this thread, note that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Texas Transportation Institute have come up with very similar congestion index values for the two cities.
Portland metro (OR-WA) has a value of 1.29 while Seattle metro has a value of 1.24.
Interestingly, on my recent trip to Austin, TX I did a fair amount of driving and made note of the extensive network of elevated freeways (unusually many for a metro area of this size) and found it interesting that there was so much stop & go traffic and congestion.
It turns out that Austin’s congestion index is 1.15, not too much better than Portland or Seattle, despite having way more freeways and expressways. Perhaps it has something to do with not being amenable to pedestrians outside of the core downtown area.
The Atlanta metro area, well known for its large network of freeways, has a congestion index worse than Portland’s at 1.36. This is consistent with my experience during a visit last summer to suburban Gwinnett county (home of the Mall of Georgia in Buford) and encountered heavy congestion throughout most of the day with long periods of stop & go traffic on arterial streets — the “peak” hour seemed to last from morning until late evening.
– Bob R.
As it grows up, instead of out, the developing transit, bike and walk infrastructure will accommodate more and more people at rather low cost…more bike lanes (cheap), more trails (relatively cheap) and more transit vehicles (buses and rail cars)…the least cheap. We can put all the money we don’t waste on roads into schools and a real research university. Portland…the world’s biggest small town.
Well, we have bike lanes (often which replaced motor vehicle lanes), we have trails, we have more transit vehicles (well, we have more trains. TriMet refuses to buy new busses.)
We haven’t built a new road to combat congestion in decades. The only “new” roads built in recent years was Roy Rogers Road (Sherwood to Murrayhill), the Forest Grove bypass (which connects the Highway 8/47 interchagnge with Highway 47 north of town), and Sunnybrook Blvd.
We’ve managed to squeeze a few bucks to widen the Sunset Highway (20 years too late). We’ve reduced capacity on Interstate Avenue (to accomodate MAX) and for some reason there are people who want to reduce capacity on Barbur Blvd. (at the same time that Barbur is designated a relief route for I-5; never mind that it never lost its state highway designation unlike Interstate Avenue and M.L.K. Blvd.)
So since we’ve spent all the money on alternative transport and we haven’t spent any money on highways, where’s this magnificent research university? (Oh, wait, OHSU spent all their money on a tram, and a bunch of land that is of questionable use; a research facility in Hillsboro that they sold off…)
Lenny Anderson Says:
Congestion pricing is not likely to catch on in Portland as it is a moderately busy, mid-sized city with short commmutes and not much congestion, except for a few points for relatively short times.
Except that in 20 years Portland will be about the same size as Seattle is today. Gotta hope more people will be riding bicycles, eh?
So since we’ve spent all the money on alternative transport and we haven’t spent any money on highways
If you start with an assumption that is so clearly untrue you will often arrive at the wrong conclusions. The region has spent far more “money on highways” than it has on all the other alternatives combined. The problem is that money spent on highways doesn’t go very far.
It all depends on your vision for our city…more elevated expressways, more destroyed neighborhoods and more air and water pollution? No thanks.
Portland started down the right path in the 70’s, and in many ways that path is one of the few things that makes Portland distinctive.
Why turn back to a transportation strategy that is guaranteed to leave Portland fiscally, esthetically and environmentally bankrupt.
Wehn we talk about balance in our transportation investments, lets look at how much money we have spent fixing and or upgrading the north/south I-5 corridor through Portland.
This is and should not be the primary interstate truck corridor through our region. The last major dollars were in the Burringame/Terwilliger Curves area of I-5 and that did not solve the core problems, but it helped. Truck still turn over and a higher level of accidents still happen.
Yes, we have put a lot of money into transit and little money into the bike and PED modes, but this critical section of our freeway system including I-405 sucks. We must create alternative to its use because with todays dollars we cannot build ourselves out of the problems we have with the lack of capacity to real demand in the I-5 corridor.
Expansion of alternatives will only go so far without major efforts to create new interconnect transit routes that get people from their home to work in reasonable time frames with total realiability. Until this can happen we are stuck with our need to use cars, buses and vans as our primary way to commute to work. That means we need our roads improved too.
To fund our need to dramatically expand transit in the Metro area we must eliminate all special exemption to the area payroll excise transit tax. This could double the funding needed to expand transit capabilities in our area and without it we end up with the same – oh, same – Oh, and that is not good enough to truly create an alternative to the use of SOV’s.
We must expect that our leaders quit talking out of both sides of their mouths. Tell the legislature that you are willing to pull off your special exemptions to this area wide payroll excise transit tax and that everyone except a few small non-profits with less then 20-employees will pay their fair share to solving the problems of expanding our transit capabilities. It takes money and leadership to make our transit system complete. This can happen RIGHT NOW, just tell the legislature! NO MORE SPECIAL CLASS OF EMPLOYER
Paul Edgar says:
OK, I’ll bite. What classes of employers receive special exemption from the area payroll tax? Why were they exempted? Exactly how much additional revenue would be collected per annum if they were to lose their “special exemption” status?
Any balance of transport must include two factors:
1. Balance must consider free choice demand and be built to meet that demand.
2. Balance must also include a funding balance whereby those who use the infrastructure also pay the majority of the costs for that infrastructure, including transit passengers paying the price tag for transit service and bicyclists directly taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure.
OK, I’ll bite. What classes of employers receive special exemption from the area payroll tax? Why were they exempted? Exactly how much additional revenue would be collected per annum if they were to lose their “special exemption” status?
http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/code/TriMet_Code_Chapter_13.pdf
“Wages” means remuneration for services performed by an employee for an employer, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash. “Wages” includes remuneration for services performed partly within the district. “Wages” does not include remuneration paid:
(1) For services performed in the employ of the United States of America and institutions (excluding hospitals) exempt from taxation under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect on December 31, 1988.
(2) For domestic service in a private home if the total amount paid to such employee is less than $1,000 a year.
(3) For casual labor not in the course of the employer’s trade or business.
(4) For services performed wholly outside of the district.
(5) To an employee whose services to the employer consist solely of seasonal labor in connection with planting, cultivating or harvesting of agricultural crops.
(6) To seamen who are exempt from garnishment, attachment or execution under Sections 596, 597, 598, and 601 of Title 46, United States Code.
(7) To individuals temporarily employed as emergency fire fighters.
(8) If the remuneration is not subject to withholding under ORS Chapter 316.
(9) To employees’ trusts exempt from taxation under Section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code, as defined by ORS 316.012.
TO: Eric Halstead & Garlynn
When you answer who are the Special Class of Employers who are exempt from paying “Mass Transit District Payroll/Excise Tax” legislated to fund Tri-Met, it is the following and they use or need to use all of the Tri-Met services just as much as anyone else and if they contributed equally to the rest who are not exempt we could come close to doubling the tax revenue brought in with this Payroll Excise Transit Tax.
All Federal Government Units
Federal Credit Unions
Public School Districts
Most all Non-Profits (501(C)3 Organizations)
Foreign Insurers
All Insurance Adjusters, agents and agencies, as well as their office staff, wheather representing foreign or domestic companies
Domestic Service in a private home
Casual Labor
Services performed outside the district
Seaman who are exempt from garnishment
Employee trust that are exempt from taxation
Tips paid by customers to employees
Wages paid to employees whose labor is connected solely to planting, cultivating, or harvesting seasonal agricultural crops
This includes most government entities and schools, including one of the largest local employer in our area, OHSU!
To me the only exemption should be a non-profit with less then 20-employees.
I agree that TriMet taxes should be evenly distributed, but what else do we know about the above exemptions?
For example, due any federal regulations (TriMet receives federal funds) prohibit taxation of federal payrolls? Due any state laws prohibit school districts from paying the normal TriMet tax?
Also, do any of the exempt entities, such as OHSU, make any bulk in-kind contributions, and if so, how close do those contributions reflect their current levels of employment compared to a payroll tax?
(I’m not raising these questions to be contrary — I actually would like to know — you raise some good points.)
– Bob R.
Paul – I’m agreeing with you.
This includes most government entities and schools, including one of the largest local employer in our area, OHSU!
It includes not just OHSU, but the VA Medical Center, PSU, PCC, City of Portland, Multnomah County, the Federal Government, the BPA…
My understanding is that although these agencies do purchase passports for their employees; such come at a discount over the monthly pass fares, and they still do not pay the payroll taxes.
To compare, my employer DOES pay payroll taxes, AND it pays for my Passport. So my employer is essentially paying twice, whereas my neighbors down the hall in the same building (in the Bureau of Developmental Services or PSU) doesn’t.
Ross Williams Says:
If you start with an assumption that is so clearly untrue you will often arrive at the wrong conclusions. The region has spent far more “money on highways” than it has on all the other alternatives combined. The problem is that money spent on highways doesn’t go very far.
Actually, any mode of transportation that you spend tons of money on – such as the freeway network, Bay Area/Puget Sound Ferry network, Airport network, NYC Subway network, etc – will encourage many people to use it.
The problem with a free system is that it encourages almost infinite demand & usage by people. The bigger problem with a freeway system is that it degrades in quality much more quickly than, for instance, a subway system. You can keep crammin’ the people onto a subway line (one of the NYC subway lines moves 1.5 MILLION people/day) – and the trains don’t slow down. Keep crammin’ cars on a freeway, and you have a traffic jam.
The primary reasoning for this, of course, is that cars waste a HUGE amount of space on the road. You can cram people together much more efficiently when they’re all sitting next to each other in the same vehicle: train, bus, airplane, boat.
So JK, you’ve half-convinced me: let’s forget about these dumb ‘toy train.’ I want the real thing: a $10 billion metro system. All grade-separated. Each train to handle 5,000 passengers at the same time. Average speed of 45 mph; tops out at 65 mph.
Any takers?
Vancouver BC is doing it:
http://www.canadaline.ca/
The bigger problem with a freeway system is that it degrades in quality much more quickly than, for instance, a subway system. You can keep crammin’ the people onto a subway line (one of the NYC subway lines moves 1.5 MILLION people/day) – and the trains don’t slow down. Keep crammin’ cars on a freeway, and you have a traffic jam.
I think the folks jammed onto trains and buses think the quality of their service has degraded. We have adopted the traffic engineers system of values, speed is the only measure of quality that is important. This is why we have cars going 30 mph through neighborhoods when a safe maximum speed for pedestrians is 15 mph.
Talking about Traffic Engineers and their failures, look at how they make our major freeways into local arterials. Our regions major Freeways could be liberated from a significant amount of vehicles by just restricting access to where local trips are taken away.
These local trips can be consolidated, taken on mass transit, walked, biked, van pooled.
A key to getting more people out of their cars are transit systems and the development of communities that are complete to where people do not need a car to get to work,shop and play.
Our Tri-Met Transit System is far from being complete. It is getting better but it is totally inadequate to where it addresses the peak period needs of the working commuter.
When 98% plus of the working commuters cannot get to their employment without the use of a car we have problems.
We must balance current and future demand with the realities we know. For example population growth in Vancouver/Clark County Washington has been growing in double digits compounded for over 10-years. Approximately 50% of this growth is generated from Oregonians leaving from Oregon but with jobs still in Oregon. They have become part of this 65,000 AM Peak Period Rush Hour commuters flooding the I-5 corridor.
If mass transit does not get these commuters to their employers in Oregon so that they can discontinue the use of their car what optiosn do (We) they have? If bus routes do not connect from their homes to their place of work (We), what options do they have? If bus transit does not connect from mas transit terminals to their place of employment what options do (We) they have? If the time that it takes and the reliability of all transit methods singularly or in combination are problematic or is impracticable these commuters have to look to the use of a car because they have NO other choice.
We must provide VIABLE CHOICES, or invest more into our roads, creating new alternative with balance as we address reality.
Good post, Paul. I’d add that in order to make that balanced system happen, we need to restore/install a true grid system of roads, particularly on the west side of the metro area. I’m not talking about multi-lane major arterials; but a series of two or four lane streets with bike lanes. That’s a major reason that providing transit is so difficult on the west side; there simply aren’t enough through streets, so buses, bikes, cars all have to compete for the same road space.
The east side has such a system and all modes work much better there.
You can keep crammin’ the people onto a subway line (one of the NYC subway lines moves 1.5 MILLION people/day) – and the trains don’t slow down. Keep crammin’ cars on a freeway, and you have a traffic jam.
Maybe TriMet needs to learn how NYC does it.
Keep cramming people onto a bus and it gets late – especially if a lift is required. Keep cramming more people onto a late bus and before you know it, the bus behind you is in front of you.
More people on a MAX train requires longer dwell times at stops which slows service down; more trains in the downtown core (three lines on same track) keeps trains at stations waiting for clear blocks.
I’ve been waiting for the Streetcar numerous times when the wait was 20 minutes; and after I got off my Streetcar at my destination, another Streetcar was just a minute or two behind – waiting for mine to “get out of the way”, which of course it cannot do.
BTW – freeways aren’t “free”. Otherwise, where’s my 40+ cent reduction in my gas price to cover for the taxes I pay?
where’s my 40+ cent reduction in my gas price to cover for the taxes I pay?
Of course freeways aren’t free. But you pay that tax on gas whether you ever use a freeway don’t you? The gas tax is not even remotely related to the cost of the roads a vehicle uses while burning it.
The gas tax is not even remotely related to the cost of the roads a vehicle uses while burning it.
Neither is the cost of transit.
Why does it cost less for me to go from Tualatin to Forest Grove (about 20 miles, and uses a combination of three busses and light rail) than from Tualatin to Portland (about 12 miles, on only one bus)?