We need more roadway capacity, not more mass transit (a contrarian view from Sept 2007)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

September 10, 2007

by Wendell Cox

...

Transit spending has failed to reduce traffic and wasted money that should have been spent on increasing road capacity.

The diversion of federal road user fees to non-highway projects began in 1982; since that time, annual transit expenditures have doubled, after adjusting for inflation. Fair value would have been for transit ridership to double. It hasn’t even come close. Today, annual miles of travel by transit are only 25 percent higher than in 1982.

...

The massive diversion of highway money to transit did not reduce traffic congestion or road use. In every one of the nation’s urban areas with a population of more than one million (where more than 90 percent of transit ridership occurs), road use increased per capita and by no less than one-third.

...

Congestion has increased even in urban areas that invested substantial local revenue in transit improvements. Portland is a prime example ... Portland went so far as to cancel a freeway and use the money to build its first light rail line, which opened in 1985.

The results have been dismal. A smaller share of people in Portland take transit to work today than before the light rail line (and the subsequent three other lines) was built. Portland’s traffic congestion has increased at a rate well above the average for large urban areas.

...

Minneapolis is another urban area where transit has failed to deliver. The urban area opened a 12-mile light rail line 2004, costing more than $700 million. The line diverted few people from using their cars, and traffic increased after it opened.

...

This paltry performance does not mean that transit does not have a role ... U.S. Census data indicates that more than 70 percent of people travel to their jobs in New York’s central business district on transit. In Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and Philadelphia, the number is about 50 percent.

...

The problem with transit is that, on average, 90 percent of jobs are not located in downtown areas ... No transit system can serve this type of demand at a speed that is competitive with the automobile.

...

The only way to reduce traffic congestion is to provide more roadway capacity. Anti-automobile ideologues argue that building more roadway capacity will simply cause people to drive more (as if people had nothing better to do).

...

There is simply no hope for reducing traffic congestion with transit.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm1607.cfm

[Dan J 277]

Most of our cities have been designed around cars. Why live in the city, when you can cheaply drive in from the outside? Public transportation does not operate effectively in cities designed like that. So most people are willing to pay for the convience of driving over public transportation. But with high gas prices the economics of that are changing.

[GaryC 7]

Most of our cities have been designed around cars. Why live in the city, when you can cheaply drive in from the outside? Public transportation does not operate effectively in cities designed like that. So most people are willing to pay for the convience of driving over public transportation. But with high gas prices the economics of that are changing.

Until and unless you have a bus stop or a train station within a few blocks of everyones homes public transportation just will not work. Whats the point of getting in your car, driving to a bus stop, look for a parking place and then take a crowded bus on a trip that takes twice as long? Do you expect people to walk for blocks to a bus stop or train station in the winter or rain? To replace cars you would have to fill the streets with busses. Not a good trade.

[HAL 9000 96]

Plenty of us walk... OMG... 2-4 blocks from home to get to the bus. If I want to go downtown, there are 5 ways of doing so on public transport here.

When I want to go shopping or to the burbs I take my car. $35 to fill up every other week. Not bad.

Miami was another story... yet manageable on bike to get to work, staying in shape in the process. Wow.

[Dan J 277]

Most of our cities have been designed around cars. Why live in the city, when you can cheaply drive in from the outside? Public transportation does not operate effectively in cities designed like that. So most people are willing to pay for the convience of driving over public transportation. But with high gas prices the economics of that are changing.

Until and unless you have a bus stop or a train station within a few blocks of everyones homes public transportation just will not work. Whats the point of getting in your car, driving to a bus stop, look for a parking place and then take a crowded bus on a trip that takes twice as long? Do you expect people to walk for blocks to a bus stop or train station in the winter or rain? To replace cars you would have to fill the streets with busses. Not a good trade.

Your missing the point.

The issue is population density. With low population density as many of our cities are designed, its not as economical to put bus stops everywhere. This is a result of cars and cheap gas. Why by a condo in the city, when you can by a house outside of the city and drive in cheaply.

The other result, is sprawl. Instead of having a grocery store within a mile from where you live, its 3-5 miles. In most cases it will take a bus alot longer to go the 3-5 miles than you would in a car.

If we instead start developing our cities for higher density. You will hardly ever have to go far to get what you need. Making buses much more of an economical option.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

Plenty of us walk... OMG... 2-4 blocks from home to get to the bus.

That's what I was thinking. It is not that big of a deal, even in rain or snow. You get used to it when it isn't really that far.

[Aubrey 10]

If we instead start developing our cities for higher density. You will hardly ever have to go far to get what you need. Making buses much more of an economical option.

Yep, and there are many cities attempting urban renewal plans to bring people back to the city. Sprawl is responsible for road congestion -> air pollution, lower city taxes -> urban decay, higher city crime rates, low-income resident density (these are the people you WANT to spread out to improve their rates of success out of poverty), and a plethora of other problems. Unfortunately, it's also usually still cheaper to live in those suburbs and commute your 40 hours a year (80 if you're in the LA area). Until more is done to reverse that trend, people will continue to abandon the cities and idle on highways. Or, they will do like I did.. abandon city life for small town life (Austin, TX to little bitty Moscow, Idaho!). Oh, and a few cities are imposing strict building limits to the outskirts in their own attempt to force higher density housing.

And as for the the complaints about light rail mentioned in this thread, it's not the end-all solution to road congestion. It's merely a start, but you have to start somewhere to build infrastructure. You start small and expand to add more stations, additional routes, and soon you have availability. Personally I would love to sit on the train instead of in hours of traffic like I often did back in Austin.

</end urban geography rant>

And I'm not a city person in general, but I have to say that it CAN be done well and be quite pleasant. If our cities were more like those in Europe -- with flowers everywhere, people walking and riding bikes, accessible train routes to most places, pleasant downtown housing -- I would happily convert to downtown city life.

[GaryC 7]

I hate big cities and would never live in an ant farm like that. I don't even like the idea of a subdivision but I can live with it. If you want to get packed in like sardines for the sake of a commute then feel free. I would never do it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I hate big cities and would never live in an ant farm like that. I don't even like the idea of a subdivision but I can live with it. If you want to get packed in like sardines for the sake of a commute then feel free. I would never do it.

Gary,

And you have every right to feel that way.

However, if inflation-adjusted energy costs continue to rise, more and more people will be "squeezed" back into existing urban cores from the suburbs and exurbs out of pure economic necessity. Those who can afford to live in low-density areas (because they are wealthy or work close or telecommute or...) will continue to do so.

The real, open question here is this - if inflation-adjusted energy costs continue to rise, which suburban/exurban communities will see the largest proportion of their populations flee to higher-density areas in search of lower energy costs? And what will become of those communities?

Note that all of this presumes a continued rise in inflation-adjusted energy costs. That may or may not happen. Klaus Gretschmann, director general for internal market issues at the EU's Council of Ministers, believes (as you do) that energy prices today are in a bubble and that the long-term pattern of rising prices is no more sustainable than rapidly rising home prices were in 2005.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Most of our cities have been designed around cars. Why live in the city, when you can cheaply drive in from the outside? Public transportation does not operate effectively in cities designed like that. So most people are willing to pay for the convience of driving over public transportation. But with high gas prices the economics of that are changing.

Until and unless you have a bus stop or a train station within a few blocks of everyones homes public transportation just will not work. Whats the point of getting in your car, driving to a bus stop, look for a parking place and then take a crowded bus on a trip that takes twice as long? Do you expect people to walk for blocks to a bus stop or train station in the winter or rain? To replace cars you would have to fill the streets with busses. Not a good trade.

Your missing the point.

The issue is population density. With low population density as many of our cities are designed, its not as economical to put bus stops everywhere. This is a result of cars and cheap gas. Why by a condo in the city, when you can by a house outside of the city and drive in cheaply.

The other result, is sprawl. Instead of having a grocery store within a mile from where you live, its 3-5 miles. In most cases it will take a bus alot longer to go the 3-5 miles than you would in a car.

If we instead start developing our cities for higher density. You will hardly ever have to go far to get what you need. Making buses much more of an economical option.

So, how many people currently living in low density areas would willingly live in high density ones? There are reasons people move away from urban centers.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Most of our cities have been designed around cars. Why live in the city, when you can cheaply drive in from the outside? Public transportation does not operate effectively in cities designed like that. So most people are willing to pay for the convience of driving over public transportation. But with high gas prices the economics of that are changing.

Until and unless you have a bus stop or a train station within a few blocks of everyones homes public transportation just will not work. Whats the point of getting in your car, driving to a bus stop, look for a parking place and then take a crowded bus on a trip that takes twice as long? Do you expect people to walk for blocks to a bus stop or train station in the winter or rain? To replace cars you would have to fill the streets with busses. Not a good trade.

Your missing the point.

The issue is population density. With low population density as many of our cities are designed, its not as economical to put bus stops everywhere. This is a result of cars and cheap gas. Why by a condo in the city, when you can by a house outside of the city and drive in cheaply.

The other result, is sprawl. Instead of having a grocery store within a mile from where you live, its 3-5 miles. In most cases it will take a bus alot longer to go the 3-5 miles than you would in a car.

If we instead start developing our cities for higher density. You will hardly ever have to go far to get what you need. Making buses much more of an economical option.

So, how many people currently living in low density areas would willingly live in high density ones? There are reasons people move away from urban centers.

I think it is more a question of how many people will have to, versus how many want to. How many people are at already on the edge of their affordability, further increases in energy costs may leave them with no option but to move closer to a bus line or train station.

I'm not saying this is good or desirable. I'm not saying people should move into denser areas. Simply pointing out that if energy prices aren't a bubble and do continue their upward trend, then many (not all or even necessarily most) will have to.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Most of our cities have been designed around cars. Why live in the city, when you can cheaply drive in from the outside? Public transportation does not operate effectively in cities designed like that. So most people are willing to pay for the convience of driving over public transportation. But with high gas prices the economics of that are changing.

Until and unless you have a bus stop or a train station within a few blocks of everyones homes public transportation just will not work. Whats the point of getting in your car, driving to a bus stop, look for a parking place and then take a crowded bus on a trip that takes twice as long? Do you expect people to walk for blocks to a bus stop or train station in the winter or rain? To replace cars you would have to fill the streets with busses. Not a good trade.

Your missing the point.

The issue is population density. With low population density as many of our cities are designed, its not as economical to put bus stops everywhere. This is a result of cars and cheap gas. Why by a condo in the city, when you can by a house outside of the city and drive in cheaply.

The other result, is sprawl. Instead of having a grocery store within a mile from where you live, its 3-5 miles. In most cases it will take a bus alot longer to go the 3-5 miles than you would in a car.

If we instead start developing our cities for higher density. You will hardly ever have to go far to get what you need. Making buses much more of an economical option.

So, how many people currently living in low density areas would willingly live in high density ones? There are reasons people move away from urban centers.

I think it is more a question of how many people will have to, versus how many want to. How many people are at already on the edge of their affordability, further increases in energy costs may leave them with no option but to move closer to a bus line or train station.

I'm not saying this is good or desirable. I'm not saying people should move into denser areas. Simply pointing out that if energy prices aren't a bubble and do continue their upward trend, then many (not all or even necessarily most) will have to.

Cram a lot of people unwillingly together, and things are liable to get ugly....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yes. These will likely be people forced together out of economic circumstance. The ones who move into the urban core areas out of love of the city will be the ones who live in the nice high rises overlooking the river The people who move in because they have to won't afford those nice high rises and will end up in 'the bad parts'. It will undoubtedly be ugly.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I hate big cities and would never live in an ant farm like that. I don't even like the idea of a subdivision but I can live with it. If you want to get packed in like sardines for the sake of a commute then feel free. I would never do it.

plus homeowner's associations. where nerds can be hitler.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I hate big cities and would never live in an ant farm like that. I don't even like the idea of a subdivision but I can live with it. If you want to get packed in like sardines for the sake of a commute then feel free. I would never do it.

plus homeowner's associations. where nerds can be hitler.

yes, because everyone knows the role of hitler is rightly reserved for #######-for-brains jocks.