12 best ways to get cars out of cities – ranked by new research
December 26, 2022 7:54 PM Subscribe
Best ways to reduce city car use, a researched listicle
Here are the twelve, read the article for their details:
1. Congestion charges
2. Parking and traffic controls
3. Limited traffic zones
4. Mobility services for commuters
5. Workplace parking charges
6. Workplace travel planning
7. University travel planning
8. Mobility services for universities
9. Car sharing [further research is needed]
10. School travel planning
11. Personalised travel plans
12. Apps for sustainable mobility
in pretty picture format
Here are the twelve, read the article for their details:
1. Congestion charges
2. Parking and traffic controls
3. Limited traffic zones
4. Mobility services for commuters
5. Workplace parking charges
6. Workplace travel planning
7. University travel planning
8. Mobility services for universities
9. Car sharing [further research is needed]
10. School travel planning
11. Personalised travel plans
12. Apps for sustainable mobility
in pretty picture format
Mm no mention of not allowing the city to become a real estate investment vehicle and instead to function as a place people live full lives. I don't care how "pedestrian friendly" a place is, if there aren't places for the people there to work, to run errands, buy useful things, and with enough of a mix of housing types and costs that the people working in the restaurants and so on can also live and eat and run errands nearby.
I've lived happily without a car before, and that was what made it easy and appealing. I didn't need workplace travel planning because my office was a pleasant 15 min walk that I could run all my errands on the way. Didn't need a car share for a huge grocery shopping trip because I could pick up anything within a few blocks. My roommate worked at a coffee shop, there were rich people and public housing all in a few blocks.
I don't mean to say the things listed aren't useful (probably more so in the suburbs) but without the things that make a neighborhood work as a system they won't be enough.
posted by sepviva at 9:04 PM on December 26, 2022 [63 favorites]
I've lived happily without a car before, and that was what made it easy and appealing. I didn't need workplace travel planning because my office was a pleasant 15 min walk that I could run all my errands on the way. Didn't need a car share for a huge grocery shopping trip because I could pick up anything within a few blocks. My roommate worked at a coffee shop, there were rich people and public housing all in a few blocks.
I don't mean to say the things listed aren't useful (probably more so in the suburbs) but without the things that make a neighborhood work as a system they won't be enough.
posted by sepviva at 9:04 PM on December 26, 2022 [63 favorites]
in Japan there is no on street parking... anywhere.
posted by wmo at 9:42 PM on December 26, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by wmo at 9:42 PM on December 26, 2022 [15 favorites]
Where are the bike lanes, scooter / bike sharing.
posted by interogative mood at 10:24 PM on December 26, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 10:24 PM on December 26, 2022 [8 favorites]
Mm no mention of not allowing the city to become a real estate investment vehicle and instead to function as a place people live full lives. I don't care how "pedestrian friendly" a place is, if there aren't places for the people there to work, to run errands, buy useful things, and with enough of a mix of housing types and costs that the people working in the restaurants and so on can also live and eat and run errands nearby.
That's my pet peeve about the bike routing system in Portland, which the planner was very proud of, and which was recommended by Euro advisors. The designated bikeways are all residential roads next to the commercial roads used by cars. Notably less direct, too. When I lived there, I could take primary bikeways all throughout the city and basically never encounter a grocery store or coffee house or retail shop unless I deviated from my route and took a more car-centric street.
posted by aniola at 10:27 PM on December 26, 2022 [8 favorites]
That's my pet peeve about the bike routing system in Portland, which the planner was very proud of, and which was recommended by Euro advisors. The designated bikeways are all residential roads next to the commercial roads used by cars. Notably less direct, too. When I lived there, I could take primary bikeways all throughout the city and basically never encounter a grocery store or coffee house or retail shop unless I deviated from my route and took a more car-centric street.
posted by aniola at 10:27 PM on December 26, 2022 [8 favorites]
ctrl/f: transit = zero hits
hmmm?
posted by philip-random at 11:12 PM on December 26, 2022 [19 favorites]
hmmm?
posted by philip-random at 11:12 PM on December 26, 2022 [19 favorites]
Where are the bike lanes, scooter / bike sharing.
It’s worth reading the article, each intervention is actually composed of carrot/stick elements which might include funding bike lanes, car sharing, transit, etc.
Not sure how they’ve chosen to class something as an intervention vs. a carrot/stick associated with an intervention, but they’re there
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:16 PM on December 26, 2022 [6 favorites]
It’s worth reading the article, each intervention is actually composed of carrot/stick elements which might include funding bike lanes, car sharing, transit, etc.
Not sure how they’ve chosen to class something as an intervention vs. a carrot/stick associated with an intervention, but they’re there
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:16 PM on December 26, 2022 [6 favorites]
Zurich reduces parking availability every year by adjusting zoning. If you own a building with parking spots then next year you might've fewer spots by law. :)
We need to double or triple gas prices too by increasing the gas taxes, because cars create problems everywhere, not just in cities.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:23 PM on December 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
We need to double or triple gas prices too by increasing the gas taxes, because cars create problems everywhere, not just in cities.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:23 PM on December 26, 2022 [3 favorites]
Where are the bike lanes, scooter / bike sharing.
That's part of #2.
ctrl/f: transit = zero hits
hmmm?
#3
I am a little surprised that I didn't see any mention of vanpooling.
4/6
posted by Mitheral at 12:16 AM on December 27, 2022 [8 favorites]
That's part of #2.
ctrl/f: transit = zero hits
hmmm?
#3
I am a little surprised that I didn't see any mention of vanpooling.
4/6
posted by Mitheral at 12:16 AM on December 27, 2022 [8 favorites]
It’s great that this sort of article - and the paper that it originally comes from - exist. But I would say that the problem is that homes are now objects of capital, so builders only wish to make maximal return on their investment. Indeed, if the company in charge of building new homes is publicly held, by UK and US standards they must make the maximum profit or their leadership can be removed at a shareholder meeting (that’s a bit of a simplification on process).
posted by The River Ivel at 12:21 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 12:21 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
in Japan there is no on street parking... anywhere.
People park on the sidewalk if there is one. And if there isn’t one, they leave their cars blocking the pedestrian “lane” with the hazard lights on for as long as they like.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s much more livable for a lifelong non-driver than the cities, towns and suburbs where I lived in the states, but the ease of car-free life is in my experience offset by the flagrantly shitty driving done by those who choose to do so.
I walked some mean streets in the USA but I was never run over by a car until I moved to Hiroshima.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 12:21 AM on December 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
People park on the sidewalk if there is one. And if there isn’t one, they leave their cars blocking the pedestrian “lane” with the hazard lights on for as long as they like.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s much more livable for a lifelong non-driver than the cities, towns and suburbs where I lived in the states, but the ease of car-free life is in my experience offset by the flagrantly shitty driving done by those who choose to do so.
I walked some mean streets in the USA but I was never run over by a car until I moved to Hiroshima.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 12:21 AM on December 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
Mm no mention of not allowing the city to become a real estate investment vehicle and instead to function as a place people live full lives.
It's not in the article but this is something Paris is leaning into heavily by providing various flavours of subsidized or social housing. Nationally 20% of French housing is required to be low rent.
posted by Mitheral at 12:24 AM on December 27, 2022 [6 favorites]
It's not in the article but this is something Paris is leaning into heavily by providing various flavours of subsidized or social housing. Nationally 20% of French housing is required to be low rent.
posted by Mitheral at 12:24 AM on December 27, 2022 [6 favorites]
Also of note is this article is written primarily about Europe. So some of your points about zoning don't make sense. European cities are already primarily mixed use, with people living in flats above shops and near to retail areas.
posted by Braeburn at 1:12 AM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Braeburn at 1:12 AM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
Parts of Europe - I'm especially thinking of the UK - are doing their damndest to make that less and less true, both in how they plan new large residential developments (densely packed suburbia outside town proper with no facilities or retail) and commercial development (big out-of-town retail parks over allowing anything built inside towns). Then there's all the retail and commercial being given planning permission for conversion into yet more investment vehicle inner city flats...
posted by Dysk at 1:48 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:48 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
aniola--- My hometown of Lawrence, KS has had those useless "bike routes" since I was a kid and it was always as if bicycling was nothing more than a recreational pursuit and not a means of legitimate transportation. If they aren't routing you down side streets then they will on occasion have a little painted line "bike lane" that's 3 feet wide and off to the side where the broken glass usually exists. Then the lane will end abruptly. The most asinine thing about it is that it's the perfect-sized city for bicycling but it's really seen as nothing more than a hobby and not a means of getting around.
posted by drstrangelove at 3:27 AM on December 27, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by drstrangelove at 3:27 AM on December 27, 2022 [6 favorites]
Toronto has chosen to basically do the opposite of all of this, which may be why it is a city in precipitous and perhaps irreversible decline.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:34 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:34 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
> ctrl/f: transit = zero hits
hmmm?
Tell me you are an American who is lazy enough to not read a listicle and who lacks domain knowledge to know that "public transport" is the preferred term used in most of the world without etc.
I mean, I don't see "increase access to public transport" on the list either, friend.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:06 AM on December 27, 2022 [13 favorites]
hmmm?
Tell me you are an American who is lazy enough to not read a listicle and who lacks domain knowledge to know that "public transport" is the preferred term used in most of the world without etc.
I mean, I don't see "increase access to public transport" on the list either, friend.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:06 AM on December 27, 2022 [13 favorites]
I've noticed that there's a certain "got mine" aspect to a lot of plans on reducing car congestion. Like, if you're already privileged enough to live in a place where everything is walkable and there's great public transit then of course you'd want to get rid of cars by imposing a congestion tax or reducing the number of parking spaces. Make other people adjust their behavior! Let them find an affordable apartment that's near the main subway line that goes right past their office and doesn't require a half-dozen bus transfers or a literal last mile hike through sketchy alleys.
The list does mention several "carrots" where money collected from the stick can be used to support public trans(it|port) networks, but there's hardly any mention of making the necessary large investments in expanding public transit. I'm told that even in European cities where the transit networks are far better there are still issues with affordability and vast regions where the transport options just suck.
There's a distinction to be made between making cities livable without cars and getting cars out of cities, and I think these ideas are definitely focused on the latter.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:11 AM on December 27, 2022 [12 favorites]
The list does mention several "carrots" where money collected from the stick can be used to support public trans(it|port) networks, but there's hardly any mention of making the necessary large investments in expanding public transit. I'm told that even in European cities where the transit networks are far better there are still issues with affordability and vast regions where the transport options just suck.
There's a distinction to be made between making cities livable without cars and getting cars out of cities, and I think these ideas are definitely focused on the latter.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:11 AM on December 27, 2022 [12 favorites]
I mean, I don't see "increase access to public transport" on the list either, friend.
But if you read the article, you'll see that public transport is mentioned 29 times - it is in fact a major theme running through many of the points on the list, just not a list point in and of itself.
posted by Dysk at 5:23 AM on December 27, 2022 [15 favorites]
But if you read the article, you'll see that public transport is mentioned 29 times - it is in fact a major theme running through many of the points on the list, just not a list point in and of itself.
posted by Dysk at 5:23 AM on December 27, 2022 [15 favorites]
There's a distinction to be made between making cities livable without cars and getting cars out of cities, and I think these ideas are definitely focused on the latter.
I think this is a worthwhile point. Cities need to be, well, cities - dense, serviced, walkable - for them to work.
Also a worthwhile point is the chicken or the egg problem with cars in cities. Cities need to work without cars before they can work without cars, and one of the biggest barriers to that is the prioritization of cars.
posted by entropone at 5:37 AM on December 27, 2022 [11 favorites]
I think this is a worthwhile point. Cities need to be, well, cities - dense, serviced, walkable - for them to work.
Also a worthwhile point is the chicken or the egg problem with cars in cities. Cities need to work without cars before they can work without cars, and one of the biggest barriers to that is the prioritization of cars.
posted by entropone at 5:37 AM on December 27, 2022 [11 favorites]
In the U.S., those passing references to public transit would be lip service and the bullet points would be the kind of marginal, market-based improvements used to argue against spending money on new public transit.
It may be different in Europe, but that's why some of us are kind of skeptical and taking notice that public transit isn't front and center. We're used to a reality where if you aren't explicitly calling for more of it to be built, you're part of the problem.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:38 AM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
It may be different in Europe, but that's why some of us are kind of skeptical and taking notice that public transit isn't front and center. We're used to a reality where if you aren't explicitly calling for more of it to be built, you're part of the problem.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:38 AM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
They're not really 'passing references' though - they're fairly central to a lot of the points. Like, the point that revenues from things on the list should be used for public transport investment is made clearly and explicitly several times.
posted by Dysk at 5:44 AM on December 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 5:44 AM on December 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
Omg arguing something isn't in the article when it is is such a massive derail, can we please keep focus on what the article actually says? If you didn't read it, please do so or skip this one.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:52 AM on December 27, 2022 [27 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:52 AM on December 27, 2022 [27 favorites]
The problem with the strategy of restricting congestion and/or parking in many American cities is that then people just won't go into the city. Suburban sprawl has resulted in most of the people in many "cities" not actually living and in many cases never actually going into the city itself except for occasional hockey games or concerts. The vast majority of population in my metro area lives outside of the city itself in places where, by design, it's just impossible to live without a car.
posted by octothorpe at 6:01 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:01 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
Unfortunately we've built our country around suburbs which are impossible to efficiently service with public transport. I don't really see any way to get around that.
posted by pepcorn at 6:03 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by pepcorn at 6:03 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
When I lived in Japan the barber across the street from my apartment parked his bright yellow Hummer H2 on the street every day. Osaka has about as many cars on the street as will fit.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 6:05 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 6:05 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
We need to double or triple gas prices too by increasing the gas taxes, because cars create problems everywhere, not just in cities.
True that they create problems, but the current reality of the US/Canada is that we have no solution for the vast swaths of those countries that aren’t dense enough to build traditional public transport for. We’d just screw with the majority of people in the country, that kind of suicide by tax isn’t happening democratically, we’ll do it by CO2 instead.
I dont disagree with the principle, it just seems unlikely to happen.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 6:24 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
True that they create problems, but the current reality of the US/Canada is that we have no solution for the vast swaths of those countries that aren’t dense enough to build traditional public transport for. We’d just screw with the majority of people in the country, that kind of suicide by tax isn’t happening democratically, we’ll do it by CO2 instead.
I dont disagree with the principle, it just seems unlikely to happen.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 6:24 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
Indeed, if the company in charge of building new homes is publicly held, by UK and US standards they must make the maximum profit or their leadership can be removed at a shareholder meeting (that’s a bit of a simplification on process).That’s not a simplification, it’s straight up wrong. This is a popular right-wing excuse for misconduct but in reality business leaders are given considerable discretion for their decisions because it’s extremely hard to say what will be the best strategy long-term. It also seems to assume that more livable building is less profitable when most of the world shows the opposite.
posted by adamsc at 6:44 AM on December 27, 2022 [6 favorites]
My employer has just moved from a centrally located building with loads of public transit and bike infrastructure connections to a complex in the exurbs surrounded by a couple square kilometres of tarmac with no reasonable non-car way of getting there. And they wonder why all their employees are not particularly interested in working at the office.
For me this means an end to 20 years of walking to work in January and a brutal commute by car through some of the busiest intersections in town. But they charge for parking to “encourage public transit use.”
posted by fimbulvetr at 6:44 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
For me this means an end to 20 years of walking to work in January and a brutal commute by car through some of the busiest intersections in town. But they charge for parking to “encourage public transit use.”
posted by fimbulvetr at 6:44 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
Just build more transit.
Maybe it will be expensive as fuck to tunnel under existing streets and mitigate the disruption. Maybe the transit will take a couple decades of low usage before people and development adjust to it's existence. Maybe it will be too popular and immediately necessitate the construction of more transit to relieve overcrowding.
We've had a few decades now of cheap, no-build solutions to encourage more optimal usage of existing transit through gentle nudging, and while there are many successes (the linked article has several), it all feels very late-stage capitalism trying to squeeze more blood out of the same infrastructure that was in some places constructed a hundred years ago and is in many cases is falling apart due to neglect and increasingly overcrowded even without any of these new incentives to ride it.
Just build it already and make the investment.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:51 AM on December 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
Maybe it will be expensive as fuck to tunnel under existing streets and mitigate the disruption. Maybe the transit will take a couple decades of low usage before people and development adjust to it's existence. Maybe it will be too popular and immediately necessitate the construction of more transit to relieve overcrowding.
We've had a few decades now of cheap, no-build solutions to encourage more optimal usage of existing transit through gentle nudging, and while there are many successes (the linked article has several), it all feels very late-stage capitalism trying to squeeze more blood out of the same infrastructure that was in some places constructed a hundred years ago and is in many cases is falling apart due to neglect and increasingly overcrowded even without any of these new incentives to ride it.
Just build it already and make the investment.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:51 AM on December 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
Unfortunately we've built our country around suburbs which are impossible to efficiently service with public transport. I don't really see any way to get around that.
Perhaps we could start by simply not building more of the same. Suburbs are wasteful on many different levels, including things most people don't even consider such as the expense of having to build and maintain the water mains that support spread out 'burbs. Even the water in the mains ends up costing more simply because there has to be more of it as opposed to a traditional, dense residential area on grid streets.
posted by drstrangelove at 7:10 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
No reason to tunnel under streets--- just build trollies and put the tracks in the street. If it inconveniences our motorized easy chairs, well that's just tough. Our entire society has been built around the happiness of our drive-in utopia for 70 years and that needs to change.
posted by drstrangelove at 7:11 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by drstrangelove at 7:11 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
If it can be built, it can be unbuilt. Prioritize density and building mixed use neighborhoods. Prioritize transit. Subways are expensive? Make some roads bus-only. It's not impossible, it's not technologically challenging. It just requires political will and for some people to put aside their personal preferences in favor of collective good.
posted by entropone at 7:13 AM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by entropone at 7:13 AM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
The other thing that we're not doing in the U.S. is building transit in lower density secondary and tertiary cities--precisely where it's cheapest to do so--and allowing denser development to take advantage of the new options. Tons and tons of roads were built "on spec" in the belief that better access would spur economic activity, but when it comes to transit no one wants to be accused of "wasting" money to put a light rail line through a place like Witchita, even if a light rail line would make the city a more desirable place to live and work.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:29 AM on December 27, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:29 AM on December 27, 2022 [12 favorites]
One of the biggest barriers to building transit in the US seems to be cost. It's huge by any metric, for no particularly good reasons. If we can't figure out how to reduce it, we're simply not going to get many new lines, even if they're desperately needed and we're willing to spend enormous amounts of money.
posted by alexei at 8:03 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by alexei at 8:03 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
But if you read the article, you'll see that public transport is mentioned 29 times - it is in fact a major theme running through many of the points on the list, just not a list point in and of itself.
Public transportation is hundreds of times better in any random European city than any random North American one (yes, even New York) that improved public transit is not going to be the winner there; they are kind of assuming that you have a functional public transit system already.
If this list was written from a North American POV I’m sure public transit would make the list.
posted by rhymedirective at 8:03 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
Public transportation is hundreds of times better in any random European city than any random North American one (yes, even New York) that improved public transit is not going to be the winner there; they are kind of assuming that you have a functional public transit system already.
If this list was written from a North American POV I’m sure public transit would make the list.
posted by rhymedirective at 8:03 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
Honestly, I’m not even sure that light rail—or even “bus rapid transit”, which I’ll define here as a dedicated right of way—is all that necessary to get people out of cars. The big thing is just frequency. If a bus comes hourly or even half-hourly, a car is always going to be more convenient if you can afford it. But when the bus comes every 10-12 minutes, you get to the point that you don’t need to follow the schedule because you’ll never be waiting long, so all of a sudden that can be more convenient than driving.
Free fares help too; it’s not like you get anywhere near operating costs with firebox recovery so why even bother? And without fares boarding is easier and faster, further encouraging use.
When I was in college, the school ran its own transit service (which I drove for). In theory you needed a University ID or bus pass to ride, but no one ever checked. We had 10 minute service (which meant you could keep a rough schedule for your stop in your head) and, as a result, we weren’t just ridden by students but by faculty and the community as a whole. The city bus system—which had 15 minute service on a couple of routes but was otherwise limited to 30 minute headways or worse—was significantly less popular (other than the 15-minute free trolley that ran between campus and downtown).
There’s no reason you couldn’t do something similar in every city or region in the US; money is an issue, of course, but you’d be saving money on new roads in the mid term.
posted by thecaddy at 8:08 AM on December 27, 2022 [11 favorites]
Free fares help too; it’s not like you get anywhere near operating costs with firebox recovery so why even bother? And without fares boarding is easier and faster, further encouraging use.
When I was in college, the school ran its own transit service (which I drove for). In theory you needed a University ID or bus pass to ride, but no one ever checked. We had 10 minute service (which meant you could keep a rough schedule for your stop in your head) and, as a result, we weren’t just ridden by students but by faculty and the community as a whole. The city bus system—which had 15 minute service on a couple of routes but was otherwise limited to 30 minute headways or worse—was significantly less popular (other than the 15-minute free trolley that ran between campus and downtown).
There’s no reason you couldn’t do something similar in every city or region in the US; money is an issue, of course, but you’d be saving money on new roads in the mid term.
posted by thecaddy at 8:08 AM on December 27, 2022 [11 favorites]
I live in a mid-sized city with a bus system that is considered ”very good” compared to the rest of the nation. A 15 minute car ride still takes an hour by bus. My friends who moved from another state are thrilled because our buses have air conditioning and come every 20 minutes instead of every 45.
The state of public transportation in America is abysmal.
posted by brook horse at 8:42 AM on December 27, 2022 [11 favorites]
The state of public transportation in America is abysmal.
posted by brook horse at 8:42 AM on December 27, 2022 [11 favorites]
Tell me you are an American
I'm North American. Canadian. Sorry, that's what we call it here. But I'm not really that sorry.
Just build more transit.
Because if this isn't your LEAD (public transport would also suffice) I'm having a hard time buying in. I suppose, because I do live in a city that has functional (reliable?) transit. It's not quite where it should be, but it's not so far away. Where should it be? It should be what it was like when I was last a student with a bus pass (mandatory, included in my tuition fees), but not just for students, FOR EVERYBODY. On major corridors, with buses running every five or ten minutes often as not in dedicated lanes, you could hop on, hop off, hop back on again without giving it much thought. And often what you did think, looking out at all the cars snarled up in the non-bus lanes, was how stupid that mode of transport looked.
Of course, once out of those main corridors, you were reminded of how thin the veneer of functional transit really is. Because suddenly, you're in zones where the buses are nowhere near as frequent, assuming they're running at all. But let's assume they are. Let's assume it's no longer a situation of there always being another bus coming soon (maybe only every half hour or hour now vs five or ten minutes). Suddenly, you have to plan, work from a schedule. Otherwise, you're looking at long waits, in driving rain, in hot sun, in howling wind. Suddenly, you're getting all kinds of motivation to NOT bloody depend on transit, suddenly you're wanting a fucking car. I've lived in such zones. I've remained a bus rider regardless*, for reasons. But guess who constitutes the vast majority of your fellow riders.
A. people too young to drive,
B. people who appear too poor to own cars.
The challenge for any transit system is to get past this. If you want to get people out of their fucking cars, don't appeal to their sense of duty or decency or conscience, offer them something better. This is entirely do-able. We know this because it's been done already in some places. Many/all of the "12 Best Ways" illustrated here are good ideas and would likely be part of overall urban/suburban functionality ... but if our central vision is not BUILD MORE TRANSIT, I'm sorry -- I think we're doing it wrong.
* I have mobility concerns now that make bus travel rather problematic.
posted by philip-random at 8:50 AM on December 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
Oh yeah it was -30 with wind chill here the other day. 20 minute wait at a bus stop means frostbite. There is no carrot that would be big enough to get me on a bus in this weather. The only stick big enough is being too poor to own a car.
posted by brook horse at 8:59 AM on December 27, 2022
posted by brook horse at 8:59 AM on December 27, 2022
Yes, Americans will fight to keep their cars, including oppose gas taxes, WaterAndPixels, but..
All those suburban houses, offices, and shopping centers become stranded assets eventually. I'm always naively hopeful we get luck and this happens sooner, like maybe a couple major oil suppliers turn down the pump for political or infrastructure reasons.
We've only 50 years of oil & gas left, so smart oil & gas exporters should really save their reserves for themselves.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:23 AM on December 27, 2022
All those suburban houses, offices, and shopping centers become stranded assets eventually. I'm always naively hopeful we get luck and this happens sooner, like maybe a couple major oil suppliers turn down the pump for political or infrastructure reasons.
We've only 50 years of oil & gas left, so smart oil & gas exporters should really save their reserves for themselves.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:23 AM on December 27, 2022
Mm no mention of not allowing the city to become a real estate investment vehicle and instead to function as a place people live full lives.
You mean you don't like getting a second mortgage to have a pint after visiting (on foot) the escape room or the (walkable) "urban axe throwing experience"?
I jest, but sepviva's point is real. Not much use making a city centre more "livable" if nobody can afford to live there, or more "walkable" if those that do live there are busing it to some distant retail park to run simple errands, or commuting out of town to work, because for whatever reason (commercial rents? I dunno) same city centre has been converted into some sort of impractical dystopian playground.
posted by busted_crayons at 9:32 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
You mean you don't like getting a second mortgage to have a pint after visiting (on foot) the escape room or the (walkable) "urban axe throwing experience"?
I jest, but sepviva's point is real. Not much use making a city centre more "livable" if nobody can afford to live there, or more "walkable" if those that do live there are busing it to some distant retail park to run simple errands, or commuting out of town to work, because for whatever reason (commercial rents? I dunno) same city centre has been converted into some sort of impractical dystopian playground.
posted by busted_crayons at 9:32 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
Just build more transit.
This is a flippant response to a very complicated problem. Transit only works when population density within about a half mile of a station/bus stop is a certain value. People just won't walk further than that.
So when you cobble together a transit network out in the sparsely populated suburbs, you get a system that runs WAY under capacity, with less farebox revenue, yet still costs the same to operate.
posted by hwyengr at 9:35 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
This is a flippant response to a very complicated problem. Transit only works when population density within about a half mile of a station/bus stop is a certain value. People just won't walk further than that.
So when you cobble together a transit network out in the sparsely populated suburbs, you get a system that runs WAY under capacity, with less farebox revenue, yet still costs the same to operate.
posted by hwyengr at 9:35 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
Nationally 20% of French housing is required to be low rent.
Yeah, and many US cities have that mandate also. The problem is that when the vast majority of people who work or need to live in the city can't afford the market rate, 20% of units being affordable doesn't come close to solving the problem for most of them. In my city the waiting list for low income or subsidized housing is about 5 years, and that's pretty typical. It's great that the program exists, but we need more like 70% affordable units, and expand the income range so that workers can afford to live in the city that requires their services. The rest of the people who make more than the income cutoff are welcome to take their cars and move to the suburbs.
posted by ananci at 9:46 AM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yeah, and many US cities have that mandate also. The problem is that when the vast majority of people who work or need to live in the city can't afford the market rate, 20% of units being affordable doesn't come close to solving the problem for most of them. In my city the waiting list for low income or subsidized housing is about 5 years, and that's pretty typical. It's great that the program exists, but we need more like 70% affordable units, and expand the income range so that workers can afford to live in the city that requires their services. The rest of the people who make more than the income cutoff are welcome to take their cars and move to the suburbs.
posted by ananci at 9:46 AM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
The fine print says "a dozen effective means to reduce car use in European cities". Many of these suggestions will work in smaller US cities, but not in the big major cities as they currently exist. Congestion fees are being implemented in NYC at some point, and probably will have an impact on outside vehicles entering the city, but parking is already a major drain on people's finances/time, and it still doesn't stop car ownership.
Public transit has not been funded properly in over 60 years in the States. Getting back to that will take as much work as re-instituting the building of (good) public housing. It is not considered a necessity by those who make most of the decisions about how to run cities (politicians/developers).
posted by drossdragon at 10:04 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
Public transit has not been funded properly in over 60 years in the States. Getting back to that will take as much work as re-instituting the building of (good) public housing. It is not considered a necessity by those who make most of the decisions about how to run cities (politicians/developers).
posted by drossdragon at 10:04 AM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
I live in a Canadian tourist town that has slowly been phasing in features similar to these over the past 2-7 years:
- We built a 500 car intercept lot at the edge of town, reduced parking in town and then started charging for the remaining downtown parking.
- The money from parking goes to public transit, which has had the same fare forever and is now free for locals, reducing the need to commute within town. Eventually it will be free for visitors but already many hotels offer a bus pass with their guest stay.
- We converted one high-street to a woonerf style pedestrian friendly street with no curbs, no curbed parking more outdoor seating and other traffic calming features, most cars see that street and don't even bother driving on it.
- We shut down the main high-street to vehicle traffic (with the exception of public transit) at the start of the pandemic and have succeeded in keeping the program going. We are now looking at converting several lanes into curbless woonerf style pedestrian friendly streets year-round.
- We've added policy that any new road has to have dedicated multi-use path to match.
- Our most congested tourist route will now have a dedicated public transit lane and dedicated ebike/bike path running parallel to it.
- Ebike subsidies (roughly $400-600 a bike) have been offered the past two years and sold out for about $75,000 year, next year they are not capping demand, which will see further shift. I drove my car twice in town last summer.
- Work is ongoing to provide steady bus and train transit from the nearest city, and to charge fees to disincentivize personal vehicle use. There has been resistance throughout, but overall the experience as a pedestrian has improved significantly and although there are threats and complaints with each news article, overall tourism is up and and sentiment/approval of visitors is up as well.
This is a flippant response to a very complicated problem. Transit only works when population density within about a half mile of a station/bus stop is a certain value. People just won't walk further than that.
Fine. Put aside for the moment the idea that transit can induce denser development and that we should be building transit in places where it's currently cheap to do so we don't have to spend more doing it later. Put aside the idea that transit construction can proactively define policy just like highway construction did.
Somerville has a density of ~18,000 people per square mile (equivalent to San Francisco) and after sixty years (!) of hand wringing about the cost, the city only just got the light rail extension they've so badly needed. How many other Somerville's are there? Why can't we just start by building more of the transit that they need?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:59 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
Fine. Put aside for the moment the idea that transit can induce denser development and that we should be building transit in places where it's currently cheap to do so we don't have to spend more doing it later. Put aside the idea that transit construction can proactively define policy just like highway construction did.
Somerville has a density of ~18,000 people per square mile (equivalent to San Francisco) and after sixty years (!) of hand wringing about the cost, the city only just got the light rail extension they've so badly needed. How many other Somerville's are there? Why can't we just start by building more of the transit that they need?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:59 AM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
So when you cobble together a transit network out in the sparsely populated suburbs, you get a system that runs WAY under capacity, with less farebox revenue, yet still costs the same to operate.
Chelsea also has a population density of 18,000 people/mi^2. Everett clocks in at about 14,000/mi^2, and Arlington and Lynn have a little over 9,000/mi^2.
These are not sparsely populated suburbs. And no amount of creating an app to gamify not driving a car is going to solve transit problems in these communities. The best way to increase the number of people taking public transit is to build more public transit.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:29 AM on December 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
Chelsea also has a population density of 18,000 people/mi^2. Everett clocks in at about 14,000/mi^2, and Arlington and Lynn have a little over 9,000/mi^2.
These are not sparsely populated suburbs. And no amount of creating an app to gamify not driving a car is going to solve transit problems in these communities. The best way to increase the number of people taking public transit is to build more public transit.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:29 AM on December 27, 2022 [7 favorites]
I'm not saying that transit is never the solution. Being a sometimes professional transit planner, I have a vested interest in seeing successful transit projects.
But like any other project that involves billions of public dollars, it needs to be set up for success, and connecting the first suburb outside the limits of a major old-world city (with an existing transit system) is VASTLY different than connecting the hodgepodge patchwork of suburbs in Houston.
Because you know what happens when you build a transit system that nobody ends up using? Service gets cut back to levels that even FEWER people end up using, and then when a new project is proposed, it's always "Well, look what happened in North Haverbrook"
posted by hwyengr at 11:49 AM on December 27, 2022 [6 favorites]
But like any other project that involves billions of public dollars, it needs to be set up for success, and connecting the first suburb outside the limits of a major old-world city (with an existing transit system) is VASTLY different than connecting the hodgepodge patchwork of suburbs in Houston.
Because you know what happens when you build a transit system that nobody ends up using? Service gets cut back to levels that even FEWER people end up using, and then when a new project is proposed, it's always "Well, look what happened in North Haverbrook"
posted by hwyengr at 11:49 AM on December 27, 2022 [6 favorites]
But this cuts right back to the earlier point about commitment. If your goal is to encourage more people to use public transit and move development that isn't car-centric, you need to be ready to put down the money and live with the resulting system being underutilized for years/decades as people and businesses adjust. And that's just where the U.S. is completely falling down by requiring that transit projects be "successful" within a very limited timeframe and under very strict conditions that define what "success" is.
It seems a lot of the cities that have good transit networks now are the result of wild (and often misplaced) speculation on the part of earlier generations, whether it was August Belmont in New York or Charles Yerkes in London. The history of some transit systems being built out first as private enterprises that promptly went bankrupt and had to be resurrected as state-sponsored entities would seem to support this. I think a huge problem with transit now is that we're unwilling to build something that we might not reap the benefits of for a few decades. North Haverbrook may be a laughingstock today, but in thirty years people will be paying two grand a month to live within walking distance of it's light rail*
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:15 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
It seems a lot of the cities that have good transit networks now are the result of wild (and often misplaced) speculation on the part of earlier generations, whether it was August Belmont in New York or Charles Yerkes in London. The history of some transit systems being built out first as private enterprises that promptly went bankrupt and had to be resurrected as state-sponsored entities would seem to support this. I think a huge problem with transit now is that we're unwilling to build something that we might not reap the benefits of for a few decades. North Haverbrook may be a laughingstock today, but in thirty years people will be paying two grand a month to live within walking distance of it's light rail*
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:15 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
After living in Switzerland, I now dread the shoddy public transit in semi-rural French areas. I've kept an extra crappy bike specifically for cycling when roads are salty, but if it's cold enough or slippery then I take the bus instead of the bike, as the bus comes often enough that it'll be warmer.
Our small exurb has 3000 people/mi^2 but its last train from Zurich runs like 00h30 on weekdays, but we've one per hour all night on weekends, which never exists in France. As a comparison, Pairs is like 10x the size of Zurich, but the RER line B from CDG airport stops just before midnight! As for non-Paris France, last trains from say Rennes to elsewhere stop like 21h or something.
Although I thankfully do not use transit enough to justify one, a Swiss GA costs 3860 CHF/year, which gives unlimited travel on Swiss trains, buses, and even some boats and mountain trains, meaning your yearly transit cost are de facto capped around $4000 here. France makes their train pricing confusing and bizarre.
I always cheer when I hear about gas stations being out of gas in some part of France, but it's thus far always caused by to strikes, not some harder systemic unavailability, but real gas shortages shall come. :)
posted by jeffburdges at 12:15 PM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
Our small exurb has 3000 people/mi^2 but its last train from Zurich runs like 00h30 on weekdays, but we've one per hour all night on weekends, which never exists in France. As a comparison, Pairs is like 10x the size of Zurich, but the RER line B from CDG airport stops just before midnight! As for non-Paris France, last trains from say Rennes to elsewhere stop like 21h or something.
Although I thankfully do not use transit enough to justify one, a Swiss GA costs 3860 CHF/year, which gives unlimited travel on Swiss trains, buses, and even some boats and mountain trains, meaning your yearly transit cost are de facto capped around $4000 here. France makes their train pricing confusing and bizarre.
I always cheer when I hear about gas stations being out of gas in some part of France, but it's thus far always caused by to strikes, not some harder systemic unavailability, but real gas shortages shall come. :)
posted by jeffburdges at 12:15 PM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
So there's a weird quirk in all of this - light rail in South Minneapolis has markedly raised rents in an area that was cheap and at least sorta integrated. There's a bunch of new development, but for instance you can live in a rather unattractive building over a parking lot in a teeny-tiny studio for well over the typical local studio rate and one-bedrooms are nearly $2000. These aren't nice buildings - they're horrible cheap stick newbuilds with no insulation and again, you're living right over a parking lot and next to a highway.
The light rail is great and has benefited Minneapolis immensely, but it seems really clear that without actual, dedicated affordable housing, improved transit risks just making things nicer for yuppies.
posted by Frowner at 12:39 PM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
The light rail is great and has benefited Minneapolis immensely, but it seems really clear that without actual, dedicated affordable housing, improved transit risks just making things nicer for yuppies.
posted by Frowner at 12:39 PM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
hwyengr: I'm not saying that transit is never the solution. Being a sometimes professional transit planner, I have a vested interest in seeing successful transit projects.
Can you unpack themes in Political/Economic/Sociological/Technical/Legal/Environmental terms -- plus how we report and discuss impact -- that help us deem a project as a success? (I'm assuming you engineer highways wth a nm lk hwyengr.)
posted by k3ninho at 12:48 PM on December 27, 2022
Can you unpack themes in Political/Economic/Sociological/Technical/Legal/Environmental terms -- plus how we report and discuss impact -- that help us deem a project as a success? (I'm assuming you engineer highways wth a nm lk hwyengr.)
posted by k3ninho at 12:48 PM on December 27, 2022
Can do.
Any US public works project that disturbs the natural environment is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which has multiple tiers of reporting/analysis based on project value/impacts/displacements. A project of the size of transit development is almost always at the top level, requiring a full EIS/EIR (Environmental Impact Statement/Report). I used to be involved with LA County Metro projects, here's a link to the most recent EIR that I was involved with. Foothill Extension Environmental Reviews
An EIR is a planning document (generally taking multiple years to prepare) that evaluates and compares identified feasible alternatives, always including the "no-build" option, which all measure against the "Purpose and Need" statement. Local agencies convene groups of "stakeholders" (public officials, resident association reps, business owners reps) to agree on this statement.
The first set of planners come up with multiple preliminary designs for the routes and station locations, taking into account the locations of businesses, points of interest, and residents and plug all of that information into various models, generating a ridership estimate.
The next set of specialist planners come in to analyze the alternatives for environmental impacts. I can't even begin to summarize the total number of studies, but most importantly they set up noise and air quality monitoring stations and translate the projected ridership into reduced vehicle travel from the existing network, and estimate whether the project will or will not improve conditions.
Then a group of engineers starts doing very preliminary designs for each of the alternatives, to get an idea of construction costs and physical environmental impacts (right-of-way takes, building removals, how much of a park needs to be used).
All of the alternatives are compared in the EIS/EIR, and if the alternative that best meets the Purpose and Need for the project has benefits that outweigh the impacts, and the conditions projected in the no-build alternative, it becomes the Preferred Alternative, goes to the Federal Transit Authority for approval, and then detailed engineering begins.
How to measure whether a project was a success? Well, there are metrics. (Are they good metrics? Depends on how realistic the estimates were in the initial study...) Was ridership met? Did the funding plan continue to hold up (i.e., is fare revenue enough that the original assessment of additional funding from the Feds/State/Municipality still working)? Did we end up with the no-build conditions even though we built? That's not a success.
posted by hwyengr at 1:21 PM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
Any US public works project that disturbs the natural environment is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which has multiple tiers of reporting/analysis based on project value/impacts/displacements. A project of the size of transit development is almost always at the top level, requiring a full EIS/EIR (Environmental Impact Statement/Report). I used to be involved with LA County Metro projects, here's a link to the most recent EIR that I was involved with. Foothill Extension Environmental Reviews
An EIR is a planning document (generally taking multiple years to prepare) that evaluates and compares identified feasible alternatives, always including the "no-build" option, which all measure against the "Purpose and Need" statement. Local agencies convene groups of "stakeholders" (public officials, resident association reps, business owners reps) to agree on this statement.
The first set of planners come up with multiple preliminary designs for the routes and station locations, taking into account the locations of businesses, points of interest, and residents and plug all of that information into various models, generating a ridership estimate.
The next set of specialist planners come in to analyze the alternatives for environmental impacts. I can't even begin to summarize the total number of studies, but most importantly they set up noise and air quality monitoring stations and translate the projected ridership into reduced vehicle travel from the existing network, and estimate whether the project will or will not improve conditions.
Then a group of engineers starts doing very preliminary designs for each of the alternatives, to get an idea of construction costs and physical environmental impacts (right-of-way takes, building removals, how much of a park needs to be used).
All of the alternatives are compared in the EIS/EIR, and if the alternative that best meets the Purpose and Need for the project has benefits that outweigh the impacts, and the conditions projected in the no-build alternative, it becomes the Preferred Alternative, goes to the Federal Transit Authority for approval, and then detailed engineering begins.
How to measure whether a project was a success? Well, there are metrics. (Are they good metrics? Depends on how realistic the estimates were in the initial study...) Was ridership met? Did the funding plan continue to hold up (i.e., is fare revenue enough that the original assessment of additional funding from the Feds/State/Municipality still working)? Did we end up with the no-build conditions even though we built? That's not a success.
posted by hwyengr at 1:21 PM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
I can't help but notice that every one of those proposals is just a different way of saying "punish the poor".
Nothing on any of those lists costs the rich anything, it's 100% funding by forcing the working poor to pay more for the privilege of going to work.
I really want a post-car future. I am a firm believer in mass transit and getting the dangerous, expensive, environmental catastrophe that is car culture to end.
But when all my allies ever suggest is an endless stream of proposals to make poverty worse and make working people poorer, well, I can kind of see the POV of the people who think environmentalism is their enemy.
Put a congestion fee in place that fines the wealthiest 5% for congestion, not the people in the congestion because those wealthy people demand it.
And most important: provide a reasonable alternative to driving.
I work a 15 minute drive from my home. I just checked and by bus it would be an hour. Both ways. I already seethe with resentment that half an hour is stolen from my life every day for my commute, asking me to make that a stolen two hours a day isn't the path forward.
The entire list reads like a right wing parody of out of touch liberals who secretly hate the poor.
posted by sotonohito at 1:21 PM on December 27, 2022 [9 favorites]
Nothing on any of those lists costs the rich anything, it's 100% funding by forcing the working poor to pay more for the privilege of going to work.
I really want a post-car future. I am a firm believer in mass transit and getting the dangerous, expensive, environmental catastrophe that is car culture to end.
But when all my allies ever suggest is an endless stream of proposals to make poverty worse and make working people poorer, well, I can kind of see the POV of the people who think environmentalism is their enemy.
Put a congestion fee in place that fines the wealthiest 5% for congestion, not the people in the congestion because those wealthy people demand it.
And most important: provide a reasonable alternative to driving.
I work a 15 minute drive from my home. I just checked and by bus it would be an hour. Both ways. I already seethe with resentment that half an hour is stolen from my life every day for my commute, asking me to make that a stolen two hours a day isn't the path forward.
The entire list reads like a right wing parody of out of touch liberals who secretly hate the poor.
posted by sotonohito at 1:21 PM on December 27, 2022 [9 favorites]
I do have a proposal to fix public transit:
Pass a law mandating that all people earning >$200,000/year or who own more than a million dollars of wealth must exclusively use public transit to get around, no private cars, no Uber. Bike, bus, and train only.
I'll guarantee all the years long paperwork mentioned in this thread magically vanishes and suddenly cities will find billions to spend making the best public transit that can exist. All the difficulties mentioned about public transit are difficulties from lack of will and drive to get the problem fixed. Make it a problem that affects rich people and all those difficulties will disappear so quickly it will be as if they never existed.
posted by sotonohito at 1:29 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
Pass a law mandating that all people earning >$200,000/year or who own more than a million dollars of wealth must exclusively use public transit to get around, no private cars, no Uber. Bike, bus, and train only.
I'll guarantee all the years long paperwork mentioned in this thread magically vanishes and suddenly cities will find billions to spend making the best public transit that can exist. All the difficulties mentioned about public transit are difficulties from lack of will and drive to get the problem fixed. Make it a problem that affects rich people and all those difficulties will disappear so quickly it will be as if they never existed.
posted by sotonohito at 1:29 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
If you had that level of societal control, I can imagine some other moves you could make. Absent that level of societal control, it's moot.
posted by sagc at 1:32 PM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 1:32 PM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
Nothing on any of those lists costs the rich anything
Doesn't one of the Nordic countries levy fines as a percentage of income? Like, a basic speeding ticket could cost thousands of $LOCAL_CURRENCY if you were the richest person in the country?
Man, that would be sweet.
posted by hwyengr at 1:47 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
Doesn't one of the Nordic countries levy fines as a percentage of income? Like, a basic speeding ticket could cost thousands of $LOCAL_CURRENCY if you were the richest person in the country?
Man, that would be sweet.
posted by hwyengr at 1:47 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
I do want to add that the intent of the NEPA process is in place to prevent what happened in the 50s and 60s with highway construction (Do we want to clear out this neighborhood? Well, that's where the road goes!) from continuing to happen.
Does it cause delays for good projects? Yes, but it also can stop bad projects (though, not always). Judges have invalidated EIRs for being shady.
posted by hwyengr at 2:02 PM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
Does it cause delays for good projects? Yes, but it also can stop bad projects (though, not always). Judges have invalidated EIRs for being shady.
posted by hwyengr at 2:02 PM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
Is NY public transit good because upper class people sometimes use it, or is it the other way around?
posted by Selena777 at 2:21 PM on December 27, 2022
posted by Selena777 at 2:21 PM on December 27, 2022
I had to laugh because I work in the middle of #4 (Mobility Service for commuters), #5 (Drivers pay to park at work.) and #7 (Reduced parking on campus.) And it isn't working well.
#4 The nearest bus stop to my home is a mile away. In the time it takes to walk to that stop, I can drive to work (there is no safe place to leave a bike nor public parking.) Due to bus driver shortages, the last bus run leaves at 4 p.m. There are alternate bus routes, but they take 3x longer than driving and almost as long as if I walk home. There are some good park and ride options but they are situated in parts of town that work best for students commuting from nearby towns or outlying suburbs.
#5 It's a college campus, so everyone pays to park. Even at $300 per year, it's very hard to find parking between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
#7 Being as this is Montana, there only two bus lines in the entire state, and they don't go everywhere. Going to the other side of the state is an 11 hour red-eye on Greyhound. And the bus only works if you live in a town on the interstate or a few towns in NW Montana. So most students who reside on campus drive to and park on campus. This year the college removed = 400 parking spaces for construction and a new building that will permanently remove 200 spaces. That reduced parking has only made parking worse. The college has never ever considered creating dedicated, safe and cheap off-site parking for those students who don't need daily drivers.
The above are examples of how car reduction strategies need to be based on LOCAL data and considerations (Montana weather is not a friendly bike commute 6 months out of the year.)
Not every strategy works in every place, and a poorly-planned or implemented strategy just makes life worse.
posted by ITravelMontana at 2:35 PM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
#4 The nearest bus stop to my home is a mile away. In the time it takes to walk to that stop, I can drive to work (there is no safe place to leave a bike nor public parking.) Due to bus driver shortages, the last bus run leaves at 4 p.m. There are alternate bus routes, but they take 3x longer than driving and almost as long as if I walk home. There are some good park and ride options but they are situated in parts of town that work best for students commuting from nearby towns or outlying suburbs.
#5 It's a college campus, so everyone pays to park. Even at $300 per year, it's very hard to find parking between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
#7 Being as this is Montana, there only two bus lines in the entire state, and they don't go everywhere. Going to the other side of the state is an 11 hour red-eye on Greyhound. And the bus only works if you live in a town on the interstate or a few towns in NW Montana. So most students who reside on campus drive to and park on campus. This year the college removed = 400 parking spaces for construction and a new building that will permanently remove 200 spaces. That reduced parking has only made parking worse. The college has never ever considered creating dedicated, safe and cheap off-site parking for those students who don't need daily drivers.
The above are examples of how car reduction strategies need to be based on LOCAL data and considerations (Montana weather is not a friendly bike commute 6 months out of the year.)
Not every strategy works in every place, and a poorly-planned or implemented strategy just makes life worse.
posted by ITravelMontana at 2:35 PM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Academic rigor, journalistic flair." Hmm. This article is just a sloppy mess.
Take the first four bullet points on the problems of automobiles. The first and third points about pollution are primarily associated not with cars themselves, but with the most commonly used engines found in cars. Replacing those with electric motors powered by batteries that are charged with solar and wind power, and which have a high rate of recycling would solve the vast majority of the pollution problems. They hardly mention this and don't consider any proposals that would accelerate the process. The second point about cars being "the leading killer of children"--more on this in a minute--makes no allowance for the prevalence of automobiles and miles driven. (Firearms are clearly the bigger concern here). The fourth, which claims that cars are "a leading driver of the widening gap between rich and poor urban residents" is unsupported by the linked abstract and, well, almost surely backwards in terms of what's driving what.
Onto the analysis... It's hard to get through the first bit. I stopped after the article linked to and cited this summary of a City of Copenhagen study. The key stats they lift are evidently from Table 2, which features clear errors of arithmetic, but also seems to be exceedingly dependent on the assumptions underlying their estimate of "Health Gains". Take away the "Health Gains" and, suddenly, bicycles are worse than cars! (Actually, not quite: as I said they screwed up the arithmetic). But ignoring that... This is simply nonsense and has no connection to reality in America.
The claim is that biking has health gains of 10.74 DKK / km, which is roughly $2.37 / mi (!)
Americans drive roughly 9,400 miles a year on average (according to FRED), and spend roughly $9,400 a year on health expenses. Evidently, we can save 237% of our total health care spending each year by biking instead of driving?!?!
Now back to that point about "leading killer of children." That same summary cites the cost of accidents being roughly 3.5 times higher for bicycles as for cars... They seemed to avoid talking about this. But it seems to imply that replacing cars with bikes would simply replace the leading cause of death for children with something significantly more dangerous. If you're going to say, "Right now we're doing X, which is killing children. Instead we should do Y!" it's only prudent to show that Y is not significantly more harmful to children than X.
Evidently, the authors did not bother to put the slightest amount of critical thought into their points. This is the sort of sloppiness that can really undermine support for important solutions to critical challenges. I really wish they'd done better.
posted by dsword at 3:00 PM on December 27, 2022
Take the first four bullet points on the problems of automobiles. The first and third points about pollution are primarily associated not with cars themselves, but with the most commonly used engines found in cars. Replacing those with electric motors powered by batteries that are charged with solar and wind power, and which have a high rate of recycling would solve the vast majority of the pollution problems. They hardly mention this and don't consider any proposals that would accelerate the process. The second point about cars being "the leading killer of children"--more on this in a minute--makes no allowance for the prevalence of automobiles and miles driven. (Firearms are clearly the bigger concern here). The fourth, which claims that cars are "a leading driver of the widening gap between rich and poor urban residents" is unsupported by the linked abstract and, well, almost surely backwards in terms of what's driving what.
Onto the analysis... It's hard to get through the first bit. I stopped after the article linked to and cited this summary of a City of Copenhagen study. The key stats they lift are evidently from Table 2, which features clear errors of arithmetic, but also seems to be exceedingly dependent on the assumptions underlying their estimate of "Health Gains". Take away the "Health Gains" and, suddenly, bicycles are worse than cars! (Actually, not quite: as I said they screwed up the arithmetic). But ignoring that... This is simply nonsense and has no connection to reality in America.
The claim is that biking has health gains of 10.74 DKK / km, which is roughly $2.37 / mi (!)
Americans drive roughly 9,400 miles a year on average (according to FRED), and spend roughly $9,400 a year on health expenses. Evidently, we can save 237% of our total health care spending each year by biking instead of driving?!?!
Now back to that point about "leading killer of children." That same summary cites the cost of accidents being roughly 3.5 times higher for bicycles as for cars... They seemed to avoid talking about this. But it seems to imply that replacing cars with bikes would simply replace the leading cause of death for children with something significantly more dangerous. If you're going to say, "Right now we're doing X, which is killing children. Instead we should do Y!" it's only prudent to show that Y is not significantly more harmful to children than X.
Evidently, the authors did not bother to put the slightest amount of critical thought into their points. This is the sort of sloppiness that can really undermine support for important solutions to critical challenges. I really wish they'd done better.
posted by dsword at 3:00 PM on December 27, 2022
This is simply nonsense and has no connection to reality in America.
I think I agree that this is not an article which should’ve been posted to an American website.
But the case studies are good, and, assuming you view human scale cities as a good thing, show how to transition away from a car dominated environment once the infrastructure to get people where they need to be is available.
posted by ambrosen at 3:16 PM on December 27, 2022
I think I agree that this is not an article which should’ve been posted to an American website.
But the case studies are good, and, assuming you view human scale cities as a good thing, show how to transition away from a car dominated environment once the infrastructure to get people where they need to be is available.
posted by ambrosen at 3:16 PM on December 27, 2022
The second point about cars being "the leading killer of children"--more on this in a minute--makes no allowance for the prevalence of automobiles and miles driven. (Firearms are clearly the bigger concern here)
The report links to the numbers they used. Even in the fire arm wild west of the USA automobiles are responsible for 20.0% of deaths of children vs. 15.4% for firearms.
posted by Mitheral at 3:18 PM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
The report links to the numbers they used. Even in the fire arm wild west of the USA automobiles are responsible for 20.0% of deaths of children vs. 15.4% for firearms.
posted by Mitheral at 3:18 PM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
Mitheral, I don't dispute that statistic. But there are at least two questions: 1) would replacing cars with bicycles make this better (their own reports indicate the opposite), and 2) what would be the easiest, most cost effective way to reduce accidental deaths in children (I think it's very clearly by reducing the number of firearms available.) A lot of the question is really about what is the proper way to normalize the data. They don't address it. It's sloppy.
But many sourcesengage in sleight of hand when counting deaths, lumping everything together that involves a car on one hand and breaking down deaths by subcategory elsewhere (e.g. intentional vs unintentional, suicide, etc.). If we examine the percentage of vehicle-related child deaths that are actually caused by alcohol, maybe we'd instead be taking about ways to reduce alcohol consumption.
posted by dsword at 3:32 PM on December 27, 2022
But many sourcesengage in sleight of hand when counting deaths, lumping everything together that involves a car on one hand and breaking down deaths by subcategory elsewhere (e.g. intentional vs unintentional, suicide, etc.). If we examine the percentage of vehicle-related child deaths that are actually caused by alcohol, maybe we'd instead be taking about ways to reduce alcohol consumption.
posted by dsword at 3:32 PM on December 27, 2022
Is NY public transit good...
Manhattan public transit is good because 4 north-south rail corridors serve an island that's just 2 miles wide (the last of which took 80 years to get approval to build). The rest of NYC can get spotty.
posted by hwyengr at 4:04 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
Manhattan public transit is good because 4 north-south rail corridors serve an island that's just 2 miles wide (the last of which took 80 years to get approval to build). The rest of NYC can get spotty.
posted by hwyengr at 4:04 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
when you cobble together a transit network out in the sparsely populated suburbs, you get a system that runs WAY under capacity, with less farebox revenue, yet still costs the same to operate.
And yet there are many suburbs with..decent.. density that aren't designed like mazes you're never intended to escape where the bus comes only hourly or less if there is a route at all.
Miami-Dade county has a fairly extensive network, but most of it sees hardly any ridership because frequency is so low. For the same money they could do a hub and spoke thing so that the neighborhood routes are short enough they don't run super late all the time and high frequency service is within a short taxi ride
posted by wierdo at 4:32 PM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
And yet there are many suburbs with..decent.. density that aren't designed like mazes you're never intended to escape where the bus comes only hourly or less if there is a route at all.
Miami-Dade county has a fairly extensive network, but most of it sees hardly any ridership because frequency is so low. For the same money they could do a hub and spoke thing so that the neighborhood routes are short enough they don't run super late all the time and high frequency service is within a short taxi ride
posted by wierdo at 4:32 PM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
Manhattan public transit is good
For somewhere of its size and density, Manhattan transport is kind of a disaster?
posted by busted_crayons at 5:47 PM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
For somewhere of its size and density, Manhattan transport is kind of a disaster?
posted by busted_crayons at 5:47 PM on December 27, 2022 [2 favorites]
Since not every trip is appropriate for mass transit...
Does anyone know what success car-sharing services (like Zipcar & Car2Go, don't know local equivalents) have had in European cities and suburbs?
Ten spaces in the car park at the local Aldi are reserved for cars that can be rented by the hour via an app. Two are large, for when you need to move a mattress; two are 'fun' like a convertible, the rest are generic rental fleet cars.
Most private cars spend most of their lives parked idle. If you've got a street or a tower block housing 40 people, sometimes they may only actually need 8 shared cars between them at any given time.
Put them on an app with a schedule and an hourly rate and cute names, for the neighborhood members to use. Someone has already reserved 'Ludwig VAN' to move a sofa and 'Blue MINI' for a pleasure drive, so you use your phone to sign out 'GOLF Kart' for two hours and take Grandpa to the dentist.
I ask because when I lived in a city where people were spending way too much money (insurance, repairs, etc) and time (looking for parking) on their personal cars, one of the most effective ways I talked people into getting rid of their own cars was by example using car-shares like this. "for a monthly membership fee, I can access a shared car whenever I want one for an afternoon, for much less than paying for a personal one 24/7/365 that just sits there depreciating".
posted by bartleby at 5:47 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
Does anyone know what success car-sharing services (like Zipcar & Car2Go, don't know local equivalents) have had in European cities and suburbs?
Ten spaces in the car park at the local Aldi are reserved for cars that can be rented by the hour via an app. Two are large, for when you need to move a mattress; two are 'fun' like a convertible, the rest are generic rental fleet cars.
Most private cars spend most of their lives parked idle. If you've got a street or a tower block housing 40 people, sometimes they may only actually need 8 shared cars between them at any given time.
Put them on an app with a schedule and an hourly rate and cute names, for the neighborhood members to use. Someone has already reserved 'Ludwig VAN' to move a sofa and 'Blue MINI' for a pleasure drive, so you use your phone to sign out 'GOLF Kart' for two hours and take Grandpa to the dentist.
I ask because when I lived in a city where people were spending way too much money (insurance, repairs, etc) and time (looking for parking) on their personal cars, one of the most effective ways I talked people into getting rid of their own cars was by example using car-shares like this. "for a monthly membership fee, I can access a shared car whenever I want one for an afternoon, for much less than paying for a personal one 24/7/365 that just sits there depreciating".
posted by bartleby at 5:47 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
YouTuber Not Just Bikes has a nice distillation of how well car sharing works for him in Amsterdam (and how it worked for him when he lived in Toronto).
posted by armeowda at 6:12 PM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by armeowda at 6:12 PM on December 27, 2022 [1 favorite]
The fine print says "a dozen effective means to reduce car use in European cities".
But God forbid we view or discuss anything except through the lens of how this relates to the USA though. As this thread has made abundantly clear, this is a terrible article because it doesn't mention transit front and centre, and its recommendations wouldn't work in a lot of US cities.
posted by Dysk at 7:38 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
But God forbid we view or discuss anything except through the lens of how this relates to the USA though. As this thread has made abundantly clear, this is a terrible article because it doesn't mention transit front and centre, and its recommendations wouldn't work in a lot of US cities.
posted by Dysk at 7:38 PM on December 27, 2022 [3 favorites]
IMO it would work fine in most American cities. My city is building a transit line, but a guy had to fight tooth and nail to provide some housing next to it, because people hate making transit useful.
Also EIS/EIRs preventing road projects is almost total crap. They are nonsense studies that just add to the cost of building in the US that any half decent consulting group can justify around, with the same nonsense environmental stats they attach to LEED buildings out in suburbia that everyone has to drive to. Right now there are huge highway construction projects adding lanes, removing people, and for no particular purpose beyond 'relieving congestion' in every state in the US.
when you cobble together a transit network out in the sparsely populated suburbs, you get a system that runs WAY under capacity, with less farebox revenue, yet still costs the same to operate.
Nobody says this about new highway expansions. They are specifically being built to run 'under capacity', until induced demand kicks in. Literally nobody cares. Farebox revenue? How many states are actively fighting tolled roads?
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:14 PM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
Also EIS/EIRs preventing road projects is almost total crap. They are nonsense studies that just add to the cost of building in the US that any half decent consulting group can justify around, with the same nonsense environmental stats they attach to LEED buildings out in suburbia that everyone has to drive to. Right now there are huge highway construction projects adding lanes, removing people, and for no particular purpose beyond 'relieving congestion' in every state in the US.
when you cobble together a transit network out in the sparsely populated suburbs, you get a system that runs WAY under capacity, with less farebox revenue, yet still costs the same to operate.
Nobody says this about new highway expansions. They are specifically being built to run 'under capacity', until induced demand kicks in. Literally nobody cares. Farebox revenue? How many states are actively fighting tolled roads?
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:14 PM on December 27, 2022 [5 favorites]
The state of public transportation in America is abysmal.
Hold my beer.
I live in Southern Ontario, and last week had to commute by public transit from my workplace for the day to my home. A distance of 16 km (ten miles) — three buses on two different cities’ transit systems. Admittedly, I did have to make a single stop of under ten minutes between bus trip #1 and #2. However, I left work at 3:30 pm on a weekday afternoon, so not an unusual time to travel.
It took me slightly over four hours to get home. If I had been driving, I could have reached central Pennsylvania in less time.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:31 PM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
Hold my beer.
I live in Southern Ontario, and last week had to commute by public transit from my workplace for the day to my home. A distance of 16 km (ten miles) — three buses on two different cities’ transit systems. Admittedly, I did have to make a single stop of under ten minutes between bus trip #1 and #2. However, I left work at 3:30 pm on a weekday afternoon, so not an unusual time to travel.
It took me slightly over four hours to get home. If I had been driving, I could have reached central Pennsylvania in less time.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:31 PM on December 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
until induced demand kicks in.
Bingo. Eventually every lane mile gets jam packed. In other words, fully utilized.
posted by hwyengr at 8:50 PM on December 27, 2022
Bingo. Eventually every lane mile gets jam packed. In other words, fully utilized.
posted by hwyengr at 8:50 PM on December 27, 2022
BTW, I am not trying to argue that the system isn’t totally fucked up. Just that we aren’t going to fix 70 years of poor urban planning by building after-the-fact retrofitted transit lines in areas where transit won’t be effective.
posted by hwyengr at 9:21 PM on December 27, 2022
posted by hwyengr at 9:21 PM on December 27, 2022
I had a longer rant written, but will just say that these suggestions tend to assume an existing, vibrant, urban life that will support downtown businesses. Unfortunately, my city does not and the effects of its efforts to reduce driving downtown has only served to accelerate the economic destruction from Covid on the downtown businesses that Covid brought. Making it harder to drive and park downtown has simply meant that more workers telecommute (particularly the well heeled ones who made up a lot of the lunch/after work drinks crowd that was the lifeblood for many restaurants and bars) and fewer people go out to events.
The majority of the carrots seem to involve biking, which as noted above, isn't a great fit for major portions of the US where it's hot and humid much of the year, at least until it becomes acceptable to show up for work dripping in sweat.
posted by Candleman at 9:26 PM on December 27, 2022
The majority of the carrots seem to involve biking, which as noted above, isn't a great fit for major portions of the US where it's hot and humid much of the year, at least until it becomes acceptable to show up for work dripping in sweat.
posted by Candleman at 9:26 PM on December 27, 2022
“Does anyone know what success car-sharing services (like Zipcar & Car2Go, don't know local equivalents) have had in European cities and suburbs?”
I’ve used a car share only once here in Amsterdam, when a group of us all went to the garden center together. But I use the cargo bike share Cargoroo regularly and I love it.
posted by antinomia at 12:12 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
I’ve used a car share only once here in Amsterdam, when a group of us all went to the garden center together. But I use the cargo bike share Cargoroo regularly and I love it.
posted by antinomia at 12:12 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think it might have been helpful if it was highlighted in the post itself, but there's a lot of frustration being voiced here that isn't really related to the article under discussion. Some people seem angry about a lot of the points listed or described, etc., even calling it "simply nonsense" because it has "no connection to reality in America."
But as several people have pointed out, this isn't actually about the U.S. The Conversation has geotargeted editions, and this one is the European edition (you can see in the top left in browser view), and even if you look *only* at the little infographic, it says "A dozen effective interventions to reduce car use in European cities."
So a lot of the contempt and anger here has a lot more to do with misapprehending the nature of the linked piece. If you feel like it's useless because it doesn't take into consideration the realities of suburbia in North America (for example), that's because it really isn't taking into consideration non-urban, non-European challenges.
I mention this because it just feels like a lot of energy is being expended in a weird way here, and it's sort of pointless to spend a lot of time taking down something because it's not what it never purported to be. Even if you don't read the article, If you just take each bit of the description on the infographic as a single piece of information on what it's about, it all makes a lot more sense: it's about [interventions] (like, not brand new infrastructure, etc.) to [reduce car use] (not about switching to electric cars), in [European] (not US/Canadian) [Cities] (concentrated urban spaces, usually with significant differences from North American cities).
Furthermore, *in* the article it specifically says it's about ranking the measures that European cities have introduced in recent decades, based on data. So it's also not focusing on new or untested ideas.
It's still possible to discuss if you are not in the EU, obviously, and interesting to think about some items that may or may not be useful in similar attempts in other parts of the world, but it would be good to acknowledge that as an expansion of the topic rather than a hot take on the article or author.
posted by taz at 12:55 AM on December 28, 2022 [13 favorites]
But as several people have pointed out, this isn't actually about the U.S. The Conversation has geotargeted editions, and this one is the European edition (you can see in the top left in browser view), and even if you look *only* at the little infographic, it says "A dozen effective interventions to reduce car use in European cities."
So a lot of the contempt and anger here has a lot more to do with misapprehending the nature of the linked piece. If you feel like it's useless because it doesn't take into consideration the realities of suburbia in North America (for example), that's because it really isn't taking into consideration non-urban, non-European challenges.
I mention this because it just feels like a lot of energy is being expended in a weird way here, and it's sort of pointless to spend a lot of time taking down something because it's not what it never purported to be. Even if you don't read the article, If you just take each bit of the description on the infographic as a single piece of information on what it's about, it all makes a lot more sense: it's about [interventions] (like, not brand new infrastructure, etc.) to [reduce car use] (not about switching to electric cars), in [European] (not US/Canadian) [Cities] (concentrated urban spaces, usually with significant differences from North American cities).
Furthermore, *in* the article it specifically says it's about ranking the measures that European cities have introduced in recent decades, based on data. So it's also not focusing on new or untested ideas.
It's still possible to discuss if you are not in the EU, obviously, and interesting to think about some items that may or may not be useful in similar attempts in other parts of the world, but it would be good to acknowledge that as an expansion of the topic rather than a hot take on the article or author.
posted by taz at 12:55 AM on December 28, 2022 [13 favorites]
Interesting, related: Cars Are Vanishing from Paris. (please just pretend that the site isn't called "Reasons to be Cheerful." I'll go ahead and predicate the link by admitting that there are no reasons to be cheerful and how dare they, etc., so we can skip that part.)
posted by taz at 1:11 AM on December 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by taz at 1:11 AM on December 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I was in Paris recently and the now car-free highway along the Seine was lovely. All joggers and families out for a walk, with park infrastructure here and there including climbing holds on the cliff face. Try to have a meal at a sidewalk cafe, however, and you still have to shout at your friends to be heard over the car noise. But they’re definitely making progress.
It is a good question, though, how does the US move from car-oriented hellscape to the quiet, green, accessible landscape of the Netherlands, where the suburbs and rural areas are just as accessible by bike and transit as the cities? How do you do it most efficiently, most quickly, with out introducing negative externalities? You see some evidence here of places that used to be strip malls surrounding a parking lot that are now mixed zoning surrounding a park or a public square. That sort of thing might be helpful in the transition. Many thoughts, too many to type rn.
posted by antinomia at 1:37 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
It is a good question, though, how does the US move from car-oriented hellscape to the quiet, green, accessible landscape of the Netherlands, where the suburbs and rural areas are just as accessible by bike and transit as the cities? How do you do it most efficiently, most quickly, with out introducing negative externalities? You see some evidence here of places that used to be strip malls surrounding a parking lot that are now mixed zoning surrounding a park or a public square. That sort of thing might be helpful in the transition. Many thoughts, too many to type rn.
posted by antinomia at 1:37 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
During the whole covid period, my midlands town council closed our effective high street to effectively all traffic (deliveries at night, and blue badge cars were allowed, very slowly) and it was fantastic. Footfall to the shops on said street did not go down as they all predicted it would (this was the major reason given for opposition to the idea) it went up. It was near-universally loved as an idea. Traffic flows down it are terrible anyway, as it has many lighted pedestrian crossings and cross-roads (where no turning is allowed anyway). There are ample parallel streets to allow it to be bypassed by traffic.
They reopened it after covid was all but declared over about a year ago. Traffic has returned. It sucks. I do not understand why they didn't just keep it pedestrianised.
posted by Dysk at 2:47 AM on December 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
They reopened it after covid was all but declared over about a year ago. Traffic has returned. It sucks. I do not understand why they didn't just keep it pedestrianised.
posted by Dysk at 2:47 AM on December 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
My employer has just moved from a centrally located building with loads of public transit and bike infrastructure connections to a complex in the exurbs surrounded by a couple square kilometres of tarmac with no reasonable non-car way of getting there.
That was my experience, too.
I originally settled in Boston because it had such good public transit that I wouldn't need a car. Then my employer moved to an office park beyond 128, and commuter rail service for reverse commutes and weekend shifts drove me to car ownership.
Nowadays, I own a house a quarter-mile from a rail station, and my employer's offices are also within walking distance of the train, but on a different line (hub & spoke system).
Getting to work via public transit requires going all the way into Boston and back out again - minimum 2 hour trip iff the schedules align - vs 30-minutes by car. Plus, driving enabled me to run errands en-route.
Pandemic wfh has made much of that moot, but the frustration remains.
posted by cheshyre at 4:07 AM on December 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
That was my experience, too.
I originally settled in Boston because it had such good public transit that I wouldn't need a car. Then my employer moved to an office park beyond 128, and commuter rail service for reverse commutes and weekend shifts drove me to car ownership.
Nowadays, I own a house a quarter-mile from a rail station, and my employer's offices are also within walking distance of the train, but on a different line (hub & spoke system).
Getting to work via public transit requires going all the way into Boston and back out again - minimum 2 hour trip iff the schedules align - vs 30-minutes by car. Plus, driving enabled me to run errands en-route.
Pandemic wfh has made much of that moot, but the frustration remains.
posted by cheshyre at 4:07 AM on December 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
Whether in Europe or America, anti-poor proposals disguised as environmentalism remain a bad idea.
posted by sotonohito at 8:35 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by sotonohito at 8:35 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Pandemic wfh has made much of that moot, but the frustration remains.
This has made a huge difference for a handful of people I know. Some have gone down to one car. Others are just driving their cars less.
I still have to go in a few times a week, but we moved just off of the bus route that is a 10 minute ride from my office and is free to me (carrot element of #7, I guess) for the academic year (still have to go in during the summer, but it is what it is). We were finally able to move this close to my job because my husband is permanently work from home.
And one of the main reasons I can rely on the bus (in addition to it being a short and usually free ride) is I have a lot of control over my schedule. So if it's 10-15 minutes late it's generally no big deal, I just start my day when I finally make it in. At other jobs I've had I'd have to leave 1-2 buses earlier and then just chill on the other side until I could start my shift. That'd be less of a big deal here, since it's a short commute with regular buses during rush hour, but it was a massive time sink for me at those previous jobs. I do wonder if we (in the US) were less tied to the clock if public transit would be an easier sell to more people.
Unfortunately, that bus route doesn't run on Sundays and it stops running by 8:30 pm during the week. When the weather is nice and my husband's back isn't flaring up, we can make the 30-45 minute walk to the downtown area for brunch/catching the transit options that do run. But that's a long walk for groceries (which is technically another 10-15 minute walk), and the weather doesn't always cooperate, so we do have one car. I think if grocery delivery was a bit more reliable (as in getting what you asked for) we'd probably not have gotten the car and just made do on Sundays.
#12, the app with rewards for not using a car kinda reminds me of bars that give DD free non-alcoholic beverages (and sometimes and app). I feel like that would have potential in my city, even if it's just a modest discount. A lot of places give students and staff from the University a 5-10% discount, so it'd be a good carrot for the non-university residents that I'd think would get some local buy in.
The carrots are definitely more appealing to me, otherwise the rich are just going to pay the money, unless you have the stick sized on a sliding scale for income.
posted by ghost phoneme at 8:51 AM on December 28, 2022
This has made a huge difference for a handful of people I know. Some have gone down to one car. Others are just driving their cars less.
I still have to go in a few times a week, but we moved just off of the bus route that is a 10 minute ride from my office and is free to me (carrot element of #7, I guess) for the academic year (still have to go in during the summer, but it is what it is). We were finally able to move this close to my job because my husband is permanently work from home.
And one of the main reasons I can rely on the bus (in addition to it being a short and usually free ride) is I have a lot of control over my schedule. So if it's 10-15 minutes late it's generally no big deal, I just start my day when I finally make it in. At other jobs I've had I'd have to leave 1-2 buses earlier and then just chill on the other side until I could start my shift. That'd be less of a big deal here, since it's a short commute with regular buses during rush hour, but it was a massive time sink for me at those previous jobs. I do wonder if we (in the US) were less tied to the clock if public transit would be an easier sell to more people.
Unfortunately, that bus route doesn't run on Sundays and it stops running by 8:30 pm during the week. When the weather is nice and my husband's back isn't flaring up, we can make the 30-45 minute walk to the downtown area for brunch/catching the transit options that do run. But that's a long walk for groceries (which is technically another 10-15 minute walk), and the weather doesn't always cooperate, so we do have one car. I think if grocery delivery was a bit more reliable (as in getting what you asked for) we'd probably not have gotten the car and just made do on Sundays.
#12, the app with rewards for not using a car kinda reminds me of bars that give DD free non-alcoholic beverages (and sometimes and app). I feel like that would have potential in my city, even if it's just a modest discount. A lot of places give students and staff from the University a 5-10% discount, so it'd be a good carrot for the non-university residents that I'd think would get some local buy in.
The carrots are definitely more appealing to me, otherwise the rich are just going to pay the money, unless you have the stick sized on a sliding scale for income.
posted by ghost phoneme at 8:51 AM on December 28, 2022
The Conversation has geotargeted editions, and this one is the European edition (you can see in the top left in browser view)
It shows "Edition: United States" for me.
The article also talks about both Europe and North America. The second bullet point is about the impact of cars in Europe and the US; later it complains about how governments in Europe and the US subsidize car use; and it points out how North American households have higher carbon footprints referencing a study in Toronto. Why is North America being repeatedly referenced if these suggestions aren't intended to apply here?
I suspect it's just poor framing, intended to hammer home how bad cars are everywhere but resulting in the reasonable expectation that the article is trying to apply these solutions to both Europe and North America, because it talks about both Europe and North America.
posted by brook horse at 9:22 AM on December 28, 2022
It shows "Edition: United States" for me.
The article also talks about both Europe and North America. The second bullet point is about the impact of cars in Europe and the US; later it complains about how governments in Europe and the US subsidize car use; and it points out how North American households have higher carbon footprints referencing a study in Toronto. Why is North America being repeatedly referenced if these suggestions aren't intended to apply here?
I suspect it's just poor framing, intended to hammer home how bad cars are everywhere but resulting in the reasonable expectation that the article is trying to apply these solutions to both Europe and North America, because it talks about both Europe and North America.
posted by brook horse at 9:22 AM on December 28, 2022
Like I definitely don't want to make an article about North America when it has nothing to do with North America... but it does repeatedly reference North America.
posted by brook horse at 9:23 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by brook horse at 9:23 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
The suggestions can apply to North America, but the relatively few references to North America/US compared to numerous specific European locations would seem to suggest the focus is more on Europe. So complaints that the list isn't addressing specifically North American issues (although really I think those also suffered from not reading the carrots in the list) seem to be a bit off the mark and a derail.
posted by ghost phoneme at 10:28 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by ghost phoneme at 10:28 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Regarding the claim that cars are a "leading driver of the widening gap between rich and poor urban residents," this (strangely) seems to claim that the main cause of inequality is technological in nature. Presumably, projects that prioritize bicycles and public transit are equalizers.
Except then you have projects like Portland's Orange Line and Tilikum Crossing in particular. The local government dumped over a billion dollars into this project that included constructing the country's largest car-free bridge. The primary purpose of this bridge--as far as I can tell--is to facilitate my workouts. To be sure, I greatly enjoy running and biking over the bridge. It connects the Portland Opera to the Oregon Health Sciences University and has great views! But judging by the traffic on a typical weeknight at rush hour (or official usage statistics), I'm one of the few.
You can share in this delightfully bourgeois experience by viewing a live video stream of the bridge, accompanied by a perfectly apt backing track of classical music. Around rush hour, you can watch as traffic on the Marquam bridge to the north grinds to a halt, while the Tilikum Crossing stays serene and empty. You might even be able to spot me stopping at the top to take in the view before heading back to the gym. You'll know it's me because I'll be the only one there.
Of course the reason this bridge was built wasn't to facilitate my workouts. Various companies were able to convince politicians to pay them to do it, and enough wealthy Portlanders were happy to see another of their pet projects completed. So it was done. Never mind that the unrealistic and inflated usage projections indicated it was a huge waste of money from the start.
The project was purely focused on alternatives to passenger cars, but it has undoubtedly contributed to widening inequality rather than alleviating it in the slightest. This is a far too common feature of American transportation projects. The underlying transit technology has little to do with it. The causes of inequality are social and political in nature.
posted by dsword at 11:27 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Except then you have projects like Portland's Orange Line and Tilikum Crossing in particular. The local government dumped over a billion dollars into this project that included constructing the country's largest car-free bridge. The primary purpose of this bridge--as far as I can tell--is to facilitate my workouts. To be sure, I greatly enjoy running and biking over the bridge. It connects the Portland Opera to the Oregon Health Sciences University and has great views! But judging by the traffic on a typical weeknight at rush hour (or official usage statistics), I'm one of the few.
You can share in this delightfully bourgeois experience by viewing a live video stream of the bridge, accompanied by a perfectly apt backing track of classical music. Around rush hour, you can watch as traffic on the Marquam bridge to the north grinds to a halt, while the Tilikum Crossing stays serene and empty. You might even be able to spot me stopping at the top to take in the view before heading back to the gym. You'll know it's me because I'll be the only one there.
Of course the reason this bridge was built wasn't to facilitate my workouts. Various companies were able to convince politicians to pay them to do it, and enough wealthy Portlanders were happy to see another of their pet projects completed. So it was done. Never mind that the unrealistic and inflated usage projections indicated it was a huge waste of money from the start.
The project was purely focused on alternatives to passenger cars, but it has undoubtedly contributed to widening inequality rather than alleviating it in the slightest. This is a far too common feature of American transportation projects. The underlying transit technology has little to do with it. The causes of inequality are social and political in nature.
posted by dsword at 11:27 AM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
I can't help but notice that every one of those proposals is just a different way of saying "punish the poor".… do you have any idea what the income distribution of car ownership looks like? In America, people earning under $50k are ~36% of the population but only ~20% of its car owners.
…
But when all my allies ever suggest is an endless stream of proposals to make poverty worse and make working people poorer, well, I can kind of see the POV of the people who think environmentalism is their enemy.
But that's not all. 58% of households in America own 2 or more cars. Getting someone to drop their 3rd or 2nd car by itself would be a huge win.
Because most people live in car-dependent communities it'll be _terribly unpopular_ but it's not singling out the poor for punishment. (Unless of course we're defining median income as poor). Better to add congestion charges, which targets cars directly, and then add income benefits, which target poverty directly.
posted by pmv at 12:08 PM on December 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Cities need to be, well, cities - dense, serviced, walkable - for them to work."
Anyone interested in this point should spend some time in large Japanese cities like Tokyo and Osaka. They have absolutely nailed the infrastructure and design necessary for making cities walkable. Trains, subways, and buses are not only ubiquitous and far-flung, they are also reliable. They run frequently, and they run on time.
And large transport hubs are more than just stations. They are like underground cities with hundreds of shops, restaurants, bars, convenience stores, department stores, you name it. You could practically live in one. Bathrooms are always nearby, and everything is relatively clean.
When I came back to the states from Japan, I found myself angry that we don't have this kind of infrastructure here. I literally feel cheated.
posted by mikeand1 at 12:49 PM on December 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
Anyone interested in this point should spend some time in large Japanese cities like Tokyo and Osaka. They have absolutely nailed the infrastructure and design necessary for making cities walkable. Trains, subways, and buses are not only ubiquitous and far-flung, they are also reliable. They run frequently, and they run on time.
And large transport hubs are more than just stations. They are like underground cities with hundreds of shops, restaurants, bars, convenience stores, department stores, you name it. You could practically live in one. Bathrooms are always nearby, and everything is relatively clean.
When I came back to the states from Japan, I found myself angry that we don't have this kind of infrastructure here. I literally feel cheated.
posted by mikeand1 at 12:49 PM on December 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
I'm really surprised at the number of comments in here that are basically, "Things cannot be improved, because where I live, they are very bad."
The fact that your city has really shitty bus service is a problem. The fact that the nearest grocery store is miles away is a problem. The fact that you don't feel safe at night, or on foot, or on transit, is a problem. The fact that your roads are too dangerous for you to cycle is a problem. The fact that your age, your time, your finances, or your mobility impairment requires a car is a failure of the city around you. When people choose to drive, it's often a perfectly good and rational decision and it's a failure of the built environment, and the builders of it, not an individual failure or a bad choice.
Some version of this comes up in every Metafilter comment about cities and transportation. Your "but the problem in my city..." is the situation we want to improve! We agree on this! Let's make things better!
posted by entropone at 2:42 PM on December 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
The fact that your city has really shitty bus service is a problem. The fact that the nearest grocery store is miles away is a problem. The fact that you don't feel safe at night, or on foot, or on transit, is a problem. The fact that your roads are too dangerous for you to cycle is a problem. The fact that your age, your time, your finances, or your mobility impairment requires a car is a failure of the city around you. When people choose to drive, it's often a perfectly good and rational decision and it's a failure of the built environment, and the builders of it, not an individual failure or a bad choice.
Some version of this comes up in every Metafilter comment about cities and transportation. Your "but the problem in my city..." is the situation we want to improve! We agree on this! Let's make things better!
posted by entropone at 2:42 PM on December 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
projects like Portland's Orange Line and Tilikum Crossing in particular
I have mixed feelings about expensive pedestrian and cycling projects. Yes, they're nice, but it does seem like a waste, and goes against the idea of walking and cycling as a cheap, low-impact solution to many of our problems.
A few thoughts: one, many of these multi-million dollar projects, particularly freeway overpasses, are built to rectify problems caused by cars, not because they're intrinsically necessary for walking. They're necessary to allow cars to not have to slow down for people. It's a fallacy to view these projects as "pedestrian" projects, when they are really party of the (enormous) cost of car infrastructure.
Our political system, with its federal grants and state bonds and contractors and all the rest, makes it easier to build expensive, high-profile projects than it does to do simpler treatments of paint and maybe some concrete (eg what's happening in Paris), even if the simpler and cheaper efforts would be more useful. So we build what we can and continue to work on the cheaper stuff.
And in terms of cost effectiveness -- perhaps building two car lanes would have been more cost-effective than pedestrian lanes. But would it? Yes, you'd get more cars across the river, but then they need to drive on streets, and they need to park, and all this will create additional costs that will have to be paid. The costs of additional non-drivers are negligible in comparison.
And when it comes to inequality, undoubtedly the main driver by far is housing costs, and specifically housing costs in cities (if you want housing in rural Iowa, it's still pretty affordable). As long as we remain committed to cars as the primary form of travel, increasing density is a non-starter. A pedestrian and transit bridge across a river may not solve inequality by itself, but it is a necessary part of the solution.
posted by alexei at 2:57 PM on December 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
I have mixed feelings about expensive pedestrian and cycling projects. Yes, they're nice, but it does seem like a waste, and goes against the idea of walking and cycling as a cheap, low-impact solution to many of our problems.
A few thoughts: one, many of these multi-million dollar projects, particularly freeway overpasses, are built to rectify problems caused by cars, not because they're intrinsically necessary for walking. They're necessary to allow cars to not have to slow down for people. It's a fallacy to view these projects as "pedestrian" projects, when they are really party of the (enormous) cost of car infrastructure.
Our political system, with its federal grants and state bonds and contractors and all the rest, makes it easier to build expensive, high-profile projects than it does to do simpler treatments of paint and maybe some concrete (eg what's happening in Paris), even if the simpler and cheaper efforts would be more useful. So we build what we can and continue to work on the cheaper stuff.
And in terms of cost effectiveness -- perhaps building two car lanes would have been more cost-effective than pedestrian lanes. But would it? Yes, you'd get more cars across the river, but then they need to drive on streets, and they need to park, and all this will create additional costs that will have to be paid. The costs of additional non-drivers are negligible in comparison.
And when it comes to inequality, undoubtedly the main driver by far is housing costs, and specifically housing costs in cities (if you want housing in rural Iowa, it's still pretty affordable). As long as we remain committed to cars as the primary form of travel, increasing density is a non-starter. A pedestrian and transit bridge across a river may not solve inequality by itself, but it is a necessary part of the solution.
posted by alexei at 2:57 PM on December 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
Around rush hour, you can watch as traffic on the Marquam bridge to the north grinds to a halt, while the Tilikum Crossing stays serene and empty.
If Tilikum Crossing was open to cars it would be as jam-packed as the Marquam. Induced demand.
posted by rhymedirective at 4:13 PM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
If Tilikum Crossing was open to cars it would be as jam-packed as the Marquam. Induced demand.
posted by rhymedirective at 4:13 PM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
alexei, I agree. Of course, on the west coast in particular, NIMBYism has been a huge contributor to both high housing cost and ineffective public transit. LRT projects, for example, are often snared by classist and racist NIMBYism.
Tilikum Crossing did add an LRT line, and this could have been great. (To TriMet's credit, they would not have built the bridge just for bikes or pedestrians.) Placed or designed differently, I think that project could have been very impactful for a great number of people (and the cost would have been justified). But for that to happen it would have needed to touch somebody's backyard...
rhymedirective, I agree as well. My remark wasn't meant to argue it should be open to cars. The point is that it was well known in advance that the public would receive little benefit from the project. The vast majority of the benefit was directed at wealthy developers and so on. My issue was primarily with the article's implied claim that transit projects reduce inequality. I think they certainly could. In practice they often don't.
posted by dsword at 4:40 PM on December 28, 2022
Tilikum Crossing did add an LRT line, and this could have been great. (To TriMet's credit, they would not have built the bridge just for bikes or pedestrians.) Placed or designed differently, I think that project could have been very impactful for a great number of people (and the cost would have been justified). But for that to happen it would have needed to touch somebody's backyard...
rhymedirective, I agree as well. My remark wasn't meant to argue it should be open to cars. The point is that it was well known in advance that the public would receive little benefit from the project. The vast majority of the benefit was directed at wealthy developers and so on. My issue was primarily with the article's implied claim that transit projects reduce inequality. I think they certainly could. In practice they often don't.
posted by dsword at 4:40 PM on December 28, 2022
I was wondering how a bike bridge cost a billion dollars but I see it has both light rail/street car and bus lanes. Are those not used? Usually if a light rail is constructed the areas around any of the stations zoom up in density and desirability. If the Orange line doesn't go to any residential areas or those areas are prohibited from increasing density then of course that wouldn't happen. (on preview sounds like ti doesn't)
One of the things with building bike infrastructure is it relies heavily on network effects (well all transport does but we don't notice it much with cars because the roads are generally well connected). If all you have is short segments that go to/from nowhere in particular then the segments are of course under utilized. We have this problem here where there is separated bike path from one side of a river (mostly residential) to the other side (the central business district) but the CBD side just dumps you out into a hell scape of car infrastructure (like not even painted bike "lanes") and the residential side is missing two big chunks that limit access to 60+ percent of the housing. However it is still somewhat utilized (mostly because each river terminus is in a park) and 15 years ago we didn't even have that. The city keeps building out multiuse trail and we are slowly getting to go father out from the river on the residential side. The CBD side is a tough nut to crack and will probably require a new dedicated multi use bridge over a multi track rail yard or an immensely unpopular (with car users) closing of one city street and a 50% lane reduction on another (this is what they should do but I don't ever see happening)
But of course you can't just roll out hundreds of kilometers of bike infrastructure over night. Is it the case the the bridge put in doesn't currently connect with the places the people in the cars are going but could in the future?
posted by Mitheral at 4:49 PM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
One of the things with building bike infrastructure is it relies heavily on network effects (well all transport does but we don't notice it much with cars because the roads are generally well connected). If all you have is short segments that go to/from nowhere in particular then the segments are of course under utilized. We have this problem here where there is separated bike path from one side of a river (mostly residential) to the other side (the central business district) but the CBD side just dumps you out into a hell scape of car infrastructure (like not even painted bike "lanes") and the residential side is missing two big chunks that limit access to 60+ percent of the housing. However it is still somewhat utilized (mostly because each river terminus is in a park) and 15 years ago we didn't even have that. The city keeps building out multiuse trail and we are slowly getting to go father out from the river on the residential side. The CBD side is a tough nut to crack and will probably require a new dedicated multi use bridge over a multi track rail yard or an immensely unpopular (with car users) closing of one city street and a 50% lane reduction on another (this is what they should do but I don't ever see happening)
But of course you can't just roll out hundreds of kilometers of bike infrastructure over night. Is it the case the the bridge put in doesn't currently connect with the places the people in the cars are going but could in the future?
posted by Mitheral at 4:49 PM on December 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
But in my city... We have a ton of public transit of every variety and it's very dense and hard to park... And that's not what makes some neighborhoods functional within walking distance vs city-themed playgrounds for wealthy. It's how much property is owned by real estate investors. Who love to make their investment areas feel more "safe" and fun, like suburban outdoor malls are safe and fun. Businesses are there to make the place feel cool, not serve neighborhood needs.
It's a totally different approach to "walkable" that you can feel and that causes a lot of the opposition here. Who's it being made walkable for? People who come in on weekends for a trendy night out? Or the not-rich people living their lives in a place, running and working at businesses? I support a lot of these things but oh man can they be used for other purposes or distract from other issues that render a place less walkable (for the wrong people). The bike trail they put in doesn't take you anywhere to work or get things you need, it's purely recreational (which is nice, sure). Gets mentioned in a lot of condo listings though!
posted by sepviva at 6:19 PM on December 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
It's a totally different approach to "walkable" that you can feel and that causes a lot of the opposition here. Who's it being made walkable for? People who come in on weekends for a trendy night out? Or the not-rich people living their lives in a place, running and working at businesses? I support a lot of these things but oh man can they be used for other purposes or distract from other issues that render a place less walkable (for the wrong people). The bike trail they put in doesn't take you anywhere to work or get things you need, it's purely recreational (which is nice, sure). Gets mentioned in a lot of condo listings though!
posted by sepviva at 6:19 PM on December 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
Mitheral,
The Orange Line project was $1.5B. The bridge was about 10% of that. I apologize, I should have been more clear.
The Orange Line is proof that arguments about "induced demand" only ever apply to cars. Usage projections have consistently been declining and overly optimistic, but even if they weren't the cost per passenger would be astounding. Prior to the pandemic, ridership was declining and there were only about 10k total trips per day or 12k during the workweek. Bike counters show steadily declining usage, with fewer than 500 users each way in 2022. Buses and pedestrians are harder to quantify. I'd estimate pedestrians at roughly equal to cyclists. Buses I can't see as being a huge number. (With both cyclists and buses, there are several other bridges nearby... there's a very limited set of origin/destinations for which the bridge would make much difference.). Really, nothing quite tells the story like standing alone at the top of the bridge at rush hour and watching near empty trains and buses go by. It will take decades before the average infrastructure cost per passenger served drops below $10, and that's ignoring operating costs, interest, etc.! I hope it does turn around, but it's hard to see it doing so without huge changes and additions, and it's hard to build support for that when all the projections keep falling short and the costs are so high.
I also don't really think there's time to waste waiting for things to turn around. I would much rather have taken that money and just given people brand new electric cars if they agreed to give up a gas car. It would have served far more people and been far more impactful from a climate perspective, which is what I think is most important. But it would not have advanced the goal of "getting rid of cars."
I think you're spot on with network effects, and that's likely a key reason adoption is so low in this town. (Other lines are better, but none are great). One thing LRT in Portland does manage to connect is customers to many well-to-do companies, like the Trail Blazers, the Timbers, the airlines, etc... Apart from subsidizing these businesses and their generally upper class clientele, I think the primary function of LRT in Portland is to provide affordable (but inconvenient) options to get cheap labor from the outskirts into the CBD and thereby maintain the status quo. I'm pretty unimpressed with it as a progressive project.
posted by dsword at 11:20 AM on December 29, 2022
The Orange Line project was $1.5B. The bridge was about 10% of that. I apologize, I should have been more clear.
The Orange Line is proof that arguments about "induced demand" only ever apply to cars. Usage projections have consistently been declining and overly optimistic, but even if they weren't the cost per passenger would be astounding. Prior to the pandemic, ridership was declining and there were only about 10k total trips per day or 12k during the workweek. Bike counters show steadily declining usage, with fewer than 500 users each way in 2022. Buses and pedestrians are harder to quantify. I'd estimate pedestrians at roughly equal to cyclists. Buses I can't see as being a huge number. (With both cyclists and buses, there are several other bridges nearby... there's a very limited set of origin/destinations for which the bridge would make much difference.). Really, nothing quite tells the story like standing alone at the top of the bridge at rush hour and watching near empty trains and buses go by. It will take decades before the average infrastructure cost per passenger served drops below $10, and that's ignoring operating costs, interest, etc.! I hope it does turn around, but it's hard to see it doing so without huge changes and additions, and it's hard to build support for that when all the projections keep falling short and the costs are so high.
I also don't really think there's time to waste waiting for things to turn around. I would much rather have taken that money and just given people brand new electric cars if they agreed to give up a gas car. It would have served far more people and been far more impactful from a climate perspective, which is what I think is most important. But it would not have advanced the goal of "getting rid of cars."
I think you're spot on with network effects, and that's likely a key reason adoption is so low in this town. (Other lines are better, but none are great). One thing LRT in Portland does manage to connect is customers to many well-to-do companies, like the Trail Blazers, the Timbers, the airlines, etc... Apart from subsidizing these businesses and their generally upper class clientele, I think the primary function of LRT in Portland is to provide affordable (but inconvenient) options to get cheap labor from the outskirts into the CBD and thereby maintain the status quo. I'm pretty unimpressed with it as a progressive project.
posted by dsword at 11:20 AM on December 29, 2022
I would much rather have taken that money and just given people brand new electric cars if they agreed to give up a gas car. It would have served far more people and been far more impactful from a climate perspective, which is what I think is most important. But it would not have advanced the goal of "getting rid of cars."
I don't know what your city is like, but here in Europe, a lot of our larger cities have terrible air quality, and cars are a huge part of that. Going to electric does not address this - lack of tailpipe emissions is great for global climate issues, but the local air pollution and particulates are offset by (or in the case of larger vehicles like SUVs, often more than offset by) the increased weight leading to more tire, road, abs brake dust.
So we're back to getting rid of cars.
The bigger issue and question I have about your city is, before that bridge was built, you were saying there was already falling ridership - why? That seems like a better place to start in tackling whatever the issue is.
posted by Dysk at 1:32 PM on December 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don't know what your city is like, but here in Europe, a lot of our larger cities have terrible air quality, and cars are a huge part of that. Going to electric does not address this - lack of tailpipe emissions is great for global climate issues, but the local air pollution and particulates are offset by (or in the case of larger vehicles like SUVs, often more than offset by) the increased weight leading to more tire, road, abs brake dust.
So we're back to getting rid of cars.
The bigger issue and question I have about your city is, before that bridge was built, you were saying there was already falling ridership - why? That seems like a better place to start in tackling whatever the issue is.
posted by Dysk at 1:32 PM on December 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Dysk,
Our air quality is often horrible, occasionally due to stagnant air trapping car exhaust, but far more often and severely due to forest fires fueled by a hotter climate. At times there is basically nowhere in the state or the entire west coast of the United States where it is healthy to be outside for any amount of time. I have never heard of brake dust causing this. (And of course, one of the great features of electric cars is the nearly dust-free way they are able to brake...) Electrification should drastically reduce PM emissions from cars.
To your question: ridership has fallen since the bridge was built. Reasons are many--see the link below. I really don't intend to hammer on this one project. It was one particular project that was justified not by any careful analysis, but by politics and motivated reasoning. It was offered only as an example to illustrate that the idea that transit projects are economic equalizers simply because they involve one mode of transport over another is simply wrong on every level. Quite often, the opposite is true, and they simply divert immense resources to... well, rail tycoons.
Here is a good NY Times article on the challenges my city faces. (There are a lot of great projects that have been completed!) It doesn't address the problems with Portland's governance model, which is unbearably bad and a big part of the reason why awful, horrendously expensive projects get greenlit.
posted by dsword at 3:13 PM on December 29, 2022
Our air quality is often horrible, occasionally due to stagnant air trapping car exhaust, but far more often and severely due to forest fires fueled by a hotter climate. At times there is basically nowhere in the state or the entire west coast of the United States where it is healthy to be outside for any amount of time. I have never heard of brake dust causing this. (And of course, one of the great features of electric cars is the nearly dust-free way they are able to brake...) Electrification should drastically reduce PM emissions from cars.
To your question: ridership has fallen since the bridge was built. Reasons are many--see the link below. I really don't intend to hammer on this one project. It was one particular project that was justified not by any careful analysis, but by politics and motivated reasoning. It was offered only as an example to illustrate that the idea that transit projects are economic equalizers simply because they involve one mode of transport over another is simply wrong on every level. Quite often, the opposite is true, and they simply divert immense resources to... well, rail tycoons.
Here is a good NY Times article on the challenges my city faces. (There are a lot of great projects that have been completed!) It doesn't address the problems with Portland's governance model, which is unbearably bad and a big part of the reason why awful, horrendously expensive projects get greenlit.
posted by dsword at 3:13 PM on December 29, 2022
Bingo. Eventually every lane mile gets jam packed. In other words, fully utilized
Unless everyone was driving for pleasure, then a fully utilized road has no particular meaning. It’s comparable to a fully utilized prison. It’s embarrassing an ‘engineer’ wouldn’t understand that distinction. But that’s what we’re up against.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:25 PM on December 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
You don’t have to put scare quotes on it. I’m a licensed engineer.
posted by hwyengr at 8:36 PM on January 14, 2023
posted by hwyengr at 8:36 PM on January 14, 2023
« Older stories of hope and resilience | We Have a Himars, Ho-Ho-Ho Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by NotLost at 9:00 PM on December 26, 2022