Comments on: Using the Congestion Argument to Push Transit Investment

By: EngineerScotty

EngineerScotty — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:28:04 +0000

Indeed, Michael.

Here in Portland, despite an excellent transit network (especially for a mid-sized city), most transit users are those commuting to and from jobs downtown–where parking is expensive. Many commuters would rather endure congestion than take transit, so long as free parking awaits them at the office.

By: Michael Druker

Michael Druker — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:16:57 +0000

I, for one, think that congestion on the roads is not appropriate from a societal (and economic) perspective. Roads will continue to have legitimate uses that cannot be reasonably mitigated by transit, and these should be achievable without undue hardship.

“…if a free road exists, people are going to use it, and in urban areas, it will become congested.”

I don’t think this is necessarily true. Even if the road is free (of congestion and tolls), you have to have the car in the first place, a place to keep the car, and a place to park the car when you get to where you’re going. All of these are costs, the last of which could be elevated with the right kind of planning and development. People will think twice about driving when the high cost of (currently) free parking is demanded of them at Point B.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:09:20 +0000

On another note: Dave, I want to comment on your post, but your Captcha hates me.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:01:08 +0000

I see your point, but we need to be careful we don’t run dangeruously close to:
“If we allow some to progress with cancer until they are terminal, it will send a message of prevention to the masses.”

Except that induced demand is a real effect in transportation, and nobody dies from excessive transit use…

By: lyqwyd

lyqwyd — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:42:22 +0000

I disagree that transit’s only advantage is a faster ride. I sometimes take a train/bus that takes 1 hour to get me to or from work vs a 15-20 minute drive (the route goes way out of the way, not that it’s much slower) because I don’t want to deal with the hassle of driving & traffic, and I enjoy being able to sit and read a book on the train/bus.

By: estate planning attorney barrington

estate planning attorney barrington — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:38:43 +0000

You stated, “congestion on the roads is beneficial to public transportation”

Perhaps it could be said that we are providing alternative treatments by offering “transit” treatment in the cancer of traffic, but shouldn’t transit only be offered as an alternative if it truly reduces commute times for the highest percent of the population?

By: Dave in KY

Dave in KY — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:53:17 +0000

The discussion on this study has largely fallen into a trap: Thinking that congestion is a major, nay, THE major problem. It is not. Nor is densification. On this page we quantify some of the problems with our transportation system. Congestion brings up the rear of the pack.
http://cartky.org/node/352

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:21:05 +0000

Transit can spur increased land use density, but it's not automatic by any means. Many other pieces need to fall into place. When the BART system was built here in the Bay Area, planners anticipated that land use densification around stations would automatically follow. It did not. We may spend more, per capita, on transit in the Bay Area than in any region outside of NYC, and we have low density sprawl that would make LA blush. Why? Probably because public policy has always made certain that driving is more convenient (and usually cheaper) than transit. Throw in widespread public perception that "density is bad" and a land use planning and permitting process that favors the status-quo (i.e., disproportionate political power resting with NIMBYs). It's going to take a very long time of very hard, proactive work by gov't and civic/enviro organizations to start to repair the land use errors in the Bay Area. Our massive investment in transit gives us mobility capacity that can be put to use when land use changes happen, but it's not making those land use changes happen to any great extent.

By: arblock

arblock — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:46:33 +0000

You’re right that transit isn’t going to reduce congestion, but it certainly provides alternatives to driving in it. I think a better argument is to look at it like diversifying your stock portfolio.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:23:57 +0000

For a given road capacity, congestion directly correlates with the amount of driving, which is going to be the complement of the amount of walking and transit use. At the same time, increasing road capacity relative to population will increase auto use.

All this means is, you reduce auto use by reducing road capacity. Everything else will just create more auto demand.