Comments on: As Congestion Mounts, Transit Agencies Consider Varying Pricing

By: gustaajedrez

gustaajedrez — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:57:52 +0000

@Anon256: Just one small thing: Many people work in just one building in the downtown area, so they really wouldn’t be affected by the city’s polycentrism because they’d just come in the morning and leave at night like they normally do.

For the people that do have to make those trips, the polycentrism makes it easier, as the transit service is cheaper (because of less peaking) and more frequent.

@eldondre: Well, you could say that all of those downtowns are just part of one big downtown. People are still commuting from the suburbs.

Now if say, Trenton or Paterson were a large employment center, we could call ourselves polycentric.

By: eldondre

eldondre — Mon, 10 May 2010 19:31:13 +0000

I have to disagree with yonah and agree with Bruce. One note here, downtowns are relatively new American inventions dating to the 19th c. prior to that, people did business in cities, but there wasn’t one downtown. and saying paris is more concentrated by using city statistics doesn’t really prove that point. given the infrastructure that DC has built, it would seem that downtown DC has met it’s theoretical maximum in terms of moving people to one area. Is it really more efficient to move people to one center? no. not even from a transportation point of view. It would be better for the metro is there were multiple destinations along the route, and especially at the ends of the routes generating two way traffic and rider turnover. To Bruce’s point, perhaps DC needs to consider encouraging development at other stations. As for premium pricing, it makes a lot of sense and is in no way counterintuitive. it’s demand pricing, it’s completely normal to charge more at peak demand times. If WMATA is out of capacity at peak times and out of money, it’s perfectly fine to charge extra (particularly if the money is being used for Metro service rather than subsidizing an empty bus somewhere). more important than greater operational subsidies is a real capital plan to address these problems. sure, there’s a light rail plan, but where’s the plan for adding four track sections or beefing up regional rail to divert some riders? one more note: NY also has multiple areas, notably downtown, midtown, newark, and hoboken to name a few.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Mon, 10 May 2010 17:12:04 +0000

I know that in the literature it’s called choice rider. I’m not disputing that term. I’m just saying that because of traffic congestion, peak-hour choice riders often don’t have a realistic highway choice. They’re choice riders in principle, but at rush hour the circumstances are such that they’re transit-dependent.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Mon, 10 May 2010 13:56:50 +0000

Alon, no, that’s the exact definition of ‘choice’ – the dependent rider doesn’t have the option of the 90-minute drive if the 40-minute drive gets too expensive or inconvenient. (Not that even DC traffic is that bad, I’d bet).

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 08 May 2010 02:37:41 +0000

Cigarette taxes aren’t meant to generate revenue; they’re meant to improve public health. The same is more or less true for driving taxes.

But even on a revenue basis, consider a case in which Congress raises the gas tax by $1/gallon, a factor of 6 increase. We already know VMT won’t drop by a factor of 6, because in 2008 we saw what VMT reductions come from a $1/gal increase in gas prices, and they’re not that drastic.

By: William A. Draves

William A. Draves — Fri, 07 May 2010 23:07:04 +0000

The problem is that a driving tax is like a cigarette tax – - it will just lessen the number of miles driven, thus collecting fewer dollars.

Gen Y already does not want to drive. And Boomers will soon be driving fewer miles as they hit the magic drive-less age of 65.

So taxing driving will generate fewer and fewer dollars as people cut back on driving, “driven” in part by the tax de-motivation.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 07 May 2010 18:17:12 +0000

If the train gets you to work in 40 minutes and the car in 90, you’re effectively transit-dependent.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Fri, 07 May 2010 16:14:08 +0000

However, since this is an actual resource inefficiency of increasing density through a single dense core rather than through a network of cores, if there are compensating benefits that justify the single dense core policy, then those benefits ought to be able to cover the differential transport system cost. The direct approach is to vest some of the incremental benefit of the denser settlement in the transport systems that permit denser settlement, with an ad volorum land tax funding capital improvements, so that in the dense urban core where expensive improvements are required to effectively support the substantially higher value of land per acre, those improvements can in fact be funded. But if that direct approach is not in place, then the transport system has to harvest some of the extra benefit it provides relative to bus and car transport in some other way. A (1) general fare increase (2) steeper off-peak discount, and (3) uncongested zone discount allows the Metro to harvest more of the benefit it creates.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Fri, 07 May 2010 16:03:01 +0000

Why is it a problem that using off-peak and uncongested zone discounts to shift total patronage around will lead to the people valuing the trip to that specific station at that specific time the most paying more for the trip?

If they want to do it, they should by all means do it as a general peak fare increase and a new uncongested zone discount on peak hour trips.

And if the result is that there is some infill development at some secondary centers outside the congested zone … what would be wrong with adding to density at a location where it is in fact cheaper to provide mass transit service?

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Fri, 07 May 2010 15:56:15 +0000

In a peak/offpeak and distance based fare structure, its is creating a de facto more expensive zone.

One thing it would do in an integrated fare system would bribe some passengers heading toward the edges of the congested area to get off at the previous station and take a long walk (or bring a folding bike and ride&pedal).

In a split fare system, its a way to bribe more people to take the bus into the congested core instead – and that is probably silly, since its highly unlikely that the marginal cost of carrying bus passenger during peak is actually lower than the marginal cost of carrying the rail passenger during peak.