Leaked Draft Shows What Could Be Coming Down The Line For Auto Safety

[Drew Dowdell]

much of Philly, outside of the central core, is desolate. It needs a fleet of bulldozers... or an Allied bombing campaign.

Remember, I grew up in the immediate Philly area. While I don't visit Philly much since 2007 or so, there have been points in my life where driving to Phila was a daily event.

I think your Pittsburgh bias is showing. ;-) So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Remember, I grew up there too. ;-)

Pittsburgh has it's pockets of bad that need to be bulldozed, but no where near as much as Philly.

However, my point to this is.... if cities actually started bulldozing this stuff and either A) encouraged rebuilding or B) ripped it out and put in a park, it would greatly improve the city.

But there needs to be a sustainable plan in place for urban density, walkability, and public transit that doesn't rely on dirty diesel buses.

much of Philly, outside of the central core, is desolate. It needs a fleet of bulldozers... or an Allied bombing campaign.

My trouble is that I've seen what a walkable city with great housing and efficient public transit can be like... and how people can live in such a place and be car free not because they have to, but because they see no point in owning a car.

and how vibrant, diverse, and most of all free that city is.

And that city is... a European city? Or are you thinking of someplace in the US?

it is many European cities.

[Robert Hall]

As far as cities I'm fairly familiar with, Portland seems to be pretty nice as far as trains, livability and walkability in it's downtown core...I've been there for a few conferences for 4-5 days w/o a car with no problems getting around...great that they have light rail from the airport. Denver's downtown core is quite walkable, and has good light rail access around the city and into the burbs...lots to see and do downtown, and liveable..alas, the airport light rail line is still a few years off..

Phoenix's downtown is a wasteland for the most part..the light rail isn't used much and don't go very far...very much a spread out 20th century sprawly city built around the car...

[Robert Hall]

My trouble is that I've seen what a walkable city with great housing and efficient public transit can be like... and how people can live in such a place and be car free not because they have to, but because they see no point in owning a car.

and how vibrant, diverse, and most of all free that city is.

And that city is... a European city? Or are you thinking of someplace in the US?

it is many European cities.

That's what I assumed...reminds me of my experiences in London, Milan, Rome, Paris and Dublin...very easy cities to explore and enjoy w/o a car.

[Croc]

As far as cities I'm fairly familiar with, Portland seems to be pretty nice as far as trains, livability and walkability in it's downtown core...I've been there for a few conferences for 4-5 days w/o a car with no problems getting around...great that they have light rail from the airport. Denver's downtown core is quite walkable, and has good light rail access around the city and into the burbs...lots to see and do downtown, and liveable..alas, the airport light rail line is still a few years off..

Phoenix's downtown is a wasteland for the most part..the light rail isn't used much and don't go very far...very much a spread out 20th century sprawly city built around the car...

OK Portland is a pretty tiny city. In fact, I refer to it as an oversized small town. Seriously, it doesn't support a real population and its size is artificially limited. Indianapolis has a larger population, though the Portland Metro Area is definitely boosted by southern Washington State. The rest of the normal, capitalist world has little-to-nothing in common.

[Robert Hall]

OK Portland is a pretty tiny city. In fact, I refer to it as an oversized small town. Seriously, it doesn't support a real population and its size is artificially limited. Indianapolis has a larger population, though the Portland Metro Area is definitely boosted by southern Washington State. The rest of the normal, capitalist world has little-to-nothing in common.

I wouldn't quite call it 'tiny'..over 1/2 million, slightly larger than Denver..2.2 mil in the metro area..I like that size of city, manageable...lots of tech jobs, lots of good local beers, pretty diverse restaurant scene, lots of outdoor recreation..

Edited May 10, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[balthazar]

>>"I've been there for a few conferences for 4-5 days w/o a car with no problems getting around..."<<

>>"...very easy cities to explore and enjoy w/o a car."<<

These comments -it seems to me- are spoken more from the viewpoint of what they are: no-timetable single person.

Sure it's fun & easy to stroll around between meetings and grab a latte from the bistro when there's nothing else to do.

I walk almost the entire week I spend down the shore (where I have no timetable), but then I go home & have to get to work.

It really isn't that simple & easy, people.

[Intrepidation]

Somehow they manage it in Europe and Japan.

[SAmadei]

Somehow they manage it in Europe and Japan.

European/Japanese cities have been notoriously car unfriendly since the beginning.

[Cory Wolfe]

If you live within a city, walking for biking will never be an issue. I could easily see the need to forgo a car in such an instance. However, the majority of the country is vast and rural. For those who don't live within a highly populated community, a car is a necessity. My 40 mile daily commute would certainly be an issue without one.

[Robert Hall]

If you live within a city, walking for biking will never be an issue. I could easily see the need to forgo a car in such an instance. However, the majority of the country is vast and rural. For those who don't live within a highly populated community, a car is a necessity. My 40 mile daily commute would certainly be an issue without one.

Well, and also necessary in a large metro area...the Phoenix metro is sprawling and vast...I had a 50 mile round trip mile daily commute for a couple of years, not on the light rail path. It would be hard to live here w/o a car even in the downtown areas. And walking/biking anywhere isn't practical w/ the vile summer heat (5 months of triple digit temps).

Looking at the places I've lived over the years, only in a few of them could I have lived w/o a car--college towns (Kent, Ohio and Ann Arbor, MI) the big city (Chicago) and downtown Denver..but in all of those places, I always had a car or three as I always had things to do and places to go frequently outside of the downtown area or areas not served by rail...

Edited May 10, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[loki]

it seems we're to the point that ... we know this isn't likely in many years. but..care to look at why this won't happen?

i'd say because roads are the most subsidized form of transit. bridges are built with federal money, ...the only roads that the state doesn't pay for are private drives, you think?

how many miles of roads are there in thi scountry, and how many are tolled? i bet it's less than 0.001%.

[SAmadei]

it seems we're to the point that ... we know this isn't likely in many years. but..care to look at why this won't happen?

i'd say because roads are the most subsidized form of transit. bridges are built with federal money, ...the only roads that the state doesn't pay for are private drives, you think?

Most of the interstates are paid for with federal money.

Roads are not the most subsidized form of transit... because road taxes are lifted for other transit methods.

how many miles of roads are there in thi scountry, and how many are tolled? i bet it's less than 0.001%.

Yeah, but that 0.001% of linear mileage is responsible for a big chunk of traffic... vehicular miles. Not only that, they spill traffic that are not able to pay the toll onto other, usually overburdened, routes.

[Croc]

If you live within a city, walking for biking will never be an issue. I could easily see the need to forgo a car in such an instance. However, the majority of the country is vast and rural. For those who don't live within a highly populated community, a car is a necessity. My 40 mile daily commute would certainly be an issue without one.

The majority of the land area of the country is rural, but the majority of the population is most certainly urban.

[pow]

I'll take a page out of the CSpec book and post a link to an Economist article because I think it's cool and you should all read it. It's about our infrastructure and stuff:

http://www.economist.com/node/18620944?story_id=18620944

---

Anyhow, with half the world's population now living in cities and world population expected to double by 2050, the private car simply isn't going to be the primary means of transport for most people. That's why smart, forward-thinking auto manufacturers like BMW and Ford are creating long-term, strategic visions to become purveyors of "mobility solutions" - e.g., leveraging advances in connectivity - beyond just stamping out cars. A smart phone app can effectively abolish "range anxiety," and car sharing technology allows consumers to pay for the hours of automobile they use, not the time it sits in their driveway. Last week I got what I needed (2-hours) from an 2011 Audi A3 2.0T S-tronic with Open Sky and Bluetooth for $18+tax, not $32,000.

Ford Urban Mobility Networks: http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=28422

BMW i: http://www.facebook.com/BMWi

BMW Activate the Future: http://www.bmwactivatethefuture.com/

Edited May 10, 2011 by pow

[Drew Dowdell]

Somehow they manage it in Europe and Japan.

European/Japanese cities have been notoriously car unfriendly since the beginning.

With one notable exception (Avignon France, surrounded by a city wall) all of the cities in Europe that I've visited are just as drivable as any city in the U.S..... yet at the same time they are easier to drive in because there are less cars on the road in the first place.

[Drew Dowdell]

If you live within a city, walking for biking will never be an issue. I could easily see the need to forgo a car in such an instance. However, the majority of the country is vast and rural. For those who don't live within a highly populated community, a car is a necessity. My 40 mile daily commute would certainly be an issue without one.

Most of the country doesn't live in rural areas.

[Drew Dowdell]

it seems we're to the point that ... we know this isn't likely in many years. but..care to look at why this won't happen?

i'd say because roads are the most subsidized form of transit. bridges are built with federal money, ...the only roads that the state doesn't pay for are private drives, you think?

Most of the interstates are paid for with federal money.

Roads are not the most subsidized form of transit... because road taxes are lifted for other transit methods.

how many miles of roads are there in thi scountry, and how many are tolled? i bet it's less than 0.001%.

Yeah, but that 0.001% of linear mileage is responsible for a big chunk of traffic... vehicular miles. Not only that, they spill traffic that are not able to pay the toll onto other, usually overburdened, routes.

Sometimes, keeping people off those roads is a form of subsidy. If keeping an extra 5,000 cars a day off of a bridge extends the life of that bridge by 5 - 7 years, that is a huge potential savings.

However, even if you put back all the road taxes taken from gas tax to use for transit, the amount of money spent on highway subsidy greatly eclipses all other transportation subsidies. Please don't bring up the per-passenger-mile metric. It is a flawed metric.

Explained:

they assume that trips on any mode of transportation will involve the same mileage, so that if the average driver lives 20 miles from work, the average bus rider will also live 20 miles from work. This assumption does not square with empirical reality. In the real world, people who live far from work tend to drive more often than people will live closer to work; the combination of long distances and the existence of multiple stops makes public transit far less convenient for someone who lives 10 miles from work than for someone who lives 2 miles from work. This is true even where transit service extends far into suburbia. For example, in Toronto, which has a long-distance commuter train system, 58 percent of commuters living less than 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) from work use non-automotive transport, as opposed to 35 percent living 1-4 kilometers (0.6 miles to 2.5 miles) away, and only 22 percent living more than 15 kilometers (9 miles) away.

[Cory Wolfe]

This is from 2005, but none-the-less adds some insight into the average daily commutes of Americans: ABC News Poll

The larger, underlying point I was trying to make revolves around the distance needed to travel for one's daily commute. According to that poll, it's an average of 16 miles one way. Obviously, it's not necessarily a true reflection of the actual commutes experienced by all American's and it's surely changed after 6 years. Regardless, using that figure, most would need to enact major changes in ones work and living arrangement to viably live without an automobile. In most cases, public transit at that distance is far more inconvenient and generally underdeveloped, if it's available at all.

[Drew Dowdell]

This is from 2005, but none-the-less adds some insight into the average daily commutes of Americans: ABC News Poll

The larger, underlying point I was trying to make revolves around the distance needed to travel for one's daily commute. According to that poll, it's an average of 16 miles one way. Obviously, it's not necessarily a true reflection of the actual commutes experienced by all American's and it's surely changed after 6 years. Regardless, using that figure, most would need to enact major changes in ones work and living arrangement to viably live without an automobile. In most cases, public transit at that distance is far more inconvenient and generally underdeveloped, if it's available at all.

It's a chicken and egg problem.

If the cities weren't so wretched to live in, people wouldn't be trying to sprawl out to live with the Amish..... which gets back to my point - that dense urban living need not be awful. With a little bit of urban planning, urban living can not only be nice, but actually be desirable. However, one of the things it requires is a very strong public transit system.

[Camino LS6]

The majority of the land area of the country is rural, but the majority of the population is most certainly urban.

And that population has a tendency to impose their views on everyone else while living in places that amplify all of the negatives in our society.

It is probably why my dislike of my fellow Americans is growing.

Many see cities and urban living as some sort of solution to our problems. I see it as a backward mentality, clinging to a tribal past. The herd mentality of it all runs counter to my most basic metrics of what is good.

I've always felt that humanity benefits most from a healthy distance between people, and that density breeds violence and a diminished standard of living.

So, why not think of all of this in another way? With so much of the work people do today, why isn't a move toward tele-commuting at the top of the agenda? Having the freedom to make a living no matter your location seems incredibly attractive to me.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Camino LS6

[Drew Dowdell]

The majority of the land area of the country is rural, but the majority of the population is most certainly urban.

And that population has a tendency to impose their views on everyone else while living in places that amplify all of the negatives in our society.

It is probably why my dislike of my fellow Americans is growing.

Many see cities and urban living as some sort of solution to our problems. I see it as a backward mentality, clinging to a tribal past. The herd mentality of it all runs counter to my most basic metrics of what is good.

I've always felt that humanity benefits most from a healthy distance between people, and that density breeds violence and a diminished standard of living.

So, why not think of all of this in another way? With so much of the work people do today, why isn't a move toward tele-commuting at the top of the agenda? Having the freedom to make a living no matter your location seems incredibly attractive to me.

There is a move to tele-commuting. It may not be a national agenda, but "the invisible hand of the market" is already pushing that one hard. Cisco is the big winner there by owning both Webex and Tandberg Telepresence.

Cities don't inherently breed violence. The way we do cities breeds violence.

[Camino LS6]

The majority of the land area of the country is rural, but the majority of the population is most certainly urban.

And that population has a tendency to impose their views on everyone else while living in places that amplify all of the negatives in our society.

It is probably why my dislike of my fellow Americans is growing.

Many see cities and urban living as some sort of solution to our problems. I see it as a backward mentality, clinging to a tribal past. The herd mentality of it all runs counter to my most basic metrics of what is good.

I've always felt that humanity benefits most from a healthy distance between people, and that density breeds violence and a diminished standard of living.

So, why not think of all of this in another way? With so much of the work people do today, why isn't a move toward tele-commuting at the top of the agenda? Having the freedom to make a living no matter your location seems incredibly attractive to me.

There is a move to tele-commuting. It may not be a national agenda, but "the invisible hand of the market" is already pushing that one hard. Cisco is the big winner there by owning both Webex and Tandberg Telepresence.

Cities don't inherently breed violence. The way we do cities breeds violence.

I have to disagree on that last point.

[Drew Dowdell]

The majority of the land area of the country is rural, but the majority of the population is most certainly urban.

And that population has a tendency to impose their views on everyone else while living in places that amplify all of the negatives in our society.

It is probably why my dislike of my fellow Americans is growing.

Many see cities and urban living as some sort of solution to our problems. I see it as a backward mentality, clinging to a tribal past. The herd mentality of it all runs counter to my most basic metrics of what is good.

I've always felt that humanity benefits most from a healthy distance between people, and that density breeds violence and a diminished standard of living.

So, why not think of all of this in another way? With so much of the work people do today, why isn't a move toward tele-commuting at the top of the agenda? Having the freedom to make a living no matter your location seems incredibly attractive to me.

There is a move to tele-commuting. It may not be a national agenda, but "the invisible hand of the market" is already pushing that one hard. Cisco is the big winner there by owning both Webex and Tandberg Telepresence.

Cities don't inherently breed violence. The way we do cities breeds violence.

I have to disagree on that last point.

Due to your experience in cities worldwide.... or what? Have you ever left the country?

[Camino LS6]

That isn't to say that our cities couldn't be better, they certainly could be.

And yes, decent mass-transit would help.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Camino LS6

[Camino LS6]

The majority of the land area of the country is rural, but the majority of the population is most certainly urban.

And that population has a tendency to impose their views on everyone else while living in places that amplify all of the negatives in our society.

It is probably why my dislike of my fellow Americans is growing.

Many see cities and urban living as some sort of solution to our problems. I see it as a backward mentality, clinging to a tribal past. The herd mentality of it all runs counter to my most basic metrics of what is good.

I've always felt that humanity benefits most from a healthy distance between people, and that density breeds violence and a diminished standard of living.

So, why not think of all of this in another way? With so much of the work people do today, why isn't a move toward tele-commuting at the top of the agenda? Having the freedom to make a living no matter your location seems incredibly attractive to me.

There is a move to tele-commuting. It may not be a national agenda, but "the invisible hand of the market" is already pushing that one hard. Cisco is the big winner there by owning both Webex and Tandberg Telepresence.

Cities don't inherently breed violence. The way we do cities breeds violence.

I have to disagree on that last point.

Due to your experience in cities worldwide.... or what? Have you ever left the country?

I have, and would like to again.

On point, just look to history (or current events) to see where the violence takes place in the world.

[Drew Dowdell]

That isn't to say that our cities couldn't be better, they certainly could be.

And yes, decent mass-transit would help.

If I ever win the lottery, I'm going to kidnap you and drag you to see what a city can be like. While I know it would never suit you personally, you'd probably end up conceding that the city life I'd show you would be desirable to a great many people in this country.

[Camino LS6]

That isn't to say that our cities couldn't be better, they certainly could be.

And yes, decent mass-transit would help.

If I ever win the lottery, I'm going to kidnap you and drag you to see what a city can be like. While I know it would never suit you personally, you'd probably end up conceding that the city life I'd show you would be desirable to a great many people in this country.

I'll hold you to that offer!

I don't dispute the urban life is desireable to many, but it isn't the panacea some make it out to be. A population moving to urban centers presents a host of ills. Cities are most defininitely not the models of sustainability they have been made out to be.

[Drew Dowdell]

That isn't to say that our cities couldn't be better, they certainly could be.

And yes, decent mass-transit would help.

If I ever win the lottery, I'm going to kidnap you and drag you to see what a city can be like. While I know it would never suit you personally, you'd probably end up conceding that the city life I'd show you would be desirable to a great many people in this country.

I'll hold you to that offer!

I don't dispute the urban life is desireable to many, but it isn't the panacea some make it out to be. A population moving to urban centers presents a host of ills. Cities are most defininitely not the models of sustainability they have been made out to be.

I just feel that the way we do urban living is quite poor. Cologne has 1,000 more people per square mile than Pittsburgh, yet it is infinitely easier to get around and get to the places one needs to go, the food is better and fresher, the city is very clean, and I never feel unsafe. I've been all over Cologne multiple times and I have yet to see an area that anyone would classify as a ghetto. Even the slightly sketchy areas of Cologne would be considered luxury living compared to the rough areas of Pittsburgh.... yet they have triple the population we do.

My one and only complaint about Cologne: The god damn church bells that wake me up at 6 am and go on for what seems like hours. Give it a rest father! I'm on vacation!

[Camino LS6]

In fairness to American cities, their European counterparts have the advantage of centuries of non-car centric planning to make them easier to get around in.

[EMan]

>>"I've been there for a few conferences for 4-5 days w/o a car with no problems getting around..."<<

>>"...very easy cities to explore and enjoy w/o a car."<<

These comments -it seems to me- are spoken more from the viewpoint of what they are: no-timetable single person.

Sure it's fun & easy to stroll around between meetings and grab a latte from the bistro when there's nothing else to do.

I walk almost the entire week I spend down the shore (where I have no timetable), but then I go home & have to get to work.

It really isn't that simple & easy, people.

I lived in Portland and the only time I used my car was when I wanted to go to the coast or to Seattle. Managed to do just fine doing my daily day to day without a car.

[Drew Dowdell]

In fairness to American cities, their European counterparts have the advantage of centuries of non-car centric planning to make them easier to get around in.

and allied bombing campaigns.... don't forget that there are many cities in Europe that were 80% - 90% destroyed in the last century. In many regards, Cologne is a newer city than Philadelphia despite being founded in 38 B.C.

[balthazar]

So seemingly the converging opinion here would put Step 1 at revamping the cities and improving rail & public transit.

This would improve & reduce urban traffic and address the issue this thread is about.

What it would cost would be undoubtedly amazingly high, of course, thusly, it's not being addressed for the most part.

Hammering car owners is at best Step 3, not Step 1. In fact, IF the urban areas could be optimized, the car situation would largely take care of itself.

Instead, it just smells like yet another money grab.

My township is proposing what they're calling a 'transit village' in place of yet another abandoned industrial complex (a vast J&J factory), but the state DOT seems to feel little motivation to move the current station 2 miles farther south for this. I attended a few of the early proposal meetings, and was not pleased to hear that the light retail that's proposed for the residences would -naturally - advertise locally.... encouraging vehicular traffic to drive there and partially torpedo'ing the concept from the start.

Edited May 10, 2011 by balthazar

[loki]

Sometimes, keeping people off those roads is a form of subsidy. If keeping an extra 5,000 cars a day off of a bridge extends the life of that bridge by 5 - 7 years, that is a huge potential savings.

However, even if you put back all the road taxes taken from gas tax to use for transit, the amount of money spent on highway subsidy greatly eclipses all other transportation subsidies. Please don't bring up the per-passenger-mile metric. It is a flawed metric.

indeed, .. for others to clarify if it's needed from wiki:

Subsidies can be regarded as a form of protectionism or trade barrier by making domestic goods and services artificially competitive against imports. Subsidies may distort markets, and can impose large economic costs.[2]

being the most subsidized form of transit, and not to mention that oil is the most subsidized energy source, what do you get? an economy that will take much longer to move away from such cheap methods of transit.

if other forms are to gain in use, they must be shown to be more economical, if they aren't available exactly how you would use a car otherwise. this can't be accomplished by throwing more subsidies at the other sectors, because we have a fiscal problem in this country, so the other way must be considered as the best way to change this... ending subsidies and finding other means to level the "playing field"

[Drew Dowdell]

The problem is paying for such improvements.

We're in a situation here in Pittsburgh that demonstrates how an unwillingness to raise taxes ends up hurting everyone.

PennDOT is gearing up to enlarge the Squirrel Hill Tunnel on I376. It is a major pinch point for traffic coming from and going to the east of the city. My house is another 3 miles to the east.

When I first bought my house, the traffic getting into town in the morning and out of town in the evening was dense, but tolerable. However, over the past 8 years, the Port Authority has needed to continuously cut bus service county wide, with two major cuts in the past 12 months (30% service cut last June and an additional 30% cut this April)

Today, the areas on both sides of the tunnel are at a near jam during all daylight hours.

The Port Authority was short $45 million for this year and that covers the entire metro area. The budget for the 3 year project to enlarge the just the Squirrel Hill Tunnel is a laughably low $60 million and will cause three years of 3 lane to 1 lane traffic.

I'm a staunch supporter of public transit and I hate HATE driving to work in the morning. The Port Authority can get me from my house to my office in 30 minutes as opposed to 1+ hours driving.* However, the Port Authority's service cuts have reduced service so to such a low frequency, that it is no longer a reliable way to get to and from work. The situation is the same for most others who live in the east and work downtown..... and that is reflected in the traffic jams that are now an all day every day thing.\

That's not to say the tunnel doesn't need to be enlarged, it most certainly does. The project was brought forward as a way to mitigate traffic density increases. The best way to mitigate that increase is to reduce the number of people traveling through the tunnel in the first place.

*The bus uses a special highway that it has exclusive use to and completely avoids the tunnels. It is a former rail line that has been paved for exclusive bus use.

[loki]

"The problem is paying for such improvements.

We're in a situation here in Pittsburgh that demonstrates how an unwillingness to raise taxes ends up hurting everyone."

raising taxes hurts everybody too though... but this is much more a philosophical debate than purely political. if taxes are raised, won't it probably cause people to leave the area, or at least buy their needs elsewhere, if they can? if either of these happens will the effective tax rate go down, or up? what will the revenues do? if that money has to be spent on those things, why not put some pork spending in a federal bill to get that money?

maybe they need to consolidate what can be then reassess what needs to be done? if it's such a good thing, donations are prolly accepted.

[Camino LS6]

I've waited in that traffic.

I have zero tolerance for that sort of traffic, and don't want a job that would require me to deal with it on a daily basis. It is too dense for me here, no way could I deal with "in town" traffic.

[SAmadei]

With one notable exception (Avignon France, surrounded by a city wall) all of the cities in Europe that I've visited are just as drivable as any city in the U.S..... yet at the same time they are easier to drive in because there are less cars on the road in the first place.

Because of automotive costs... whats gas in the EU now? $11 a gallon? How much to park, insure, etc. Sure, the London congestion charge helps the people willing to pay, but it is still a sign of general car unfriendliness. If the US implemented a road levy so steep only 1% of the population could afford to drive, all Americas cities would be easy to drive... but that is hardly CAR FRIENDLY.

NYC is perfectly driveable for me. You simply go where the traffic isn't. I can get around NYC pretty quickly when I need to... but that is not making NYC car friendly.

I've lived there first without a car... then with. Not surprisingly, I prefer the car life. Only thing I'd so to improve my car life in NYC is get a Smart... so I could park it in a parking spot fragment.

Sometimes, keeping people off those roads is a form of subsidy. If keeping an extra 5,000 cars a day off of a bridge extends the life of that bridge by 5 - 7 years, that is a huge potential savings.

Good for the Garden State Parkway... but bad for US route 9... where those 5000 people have pummeled a bridge into closure... and now US route 9 is piped over the GSP bridge for free.

Of course, those 5000 cars do the same road wear as what.... 12 large trucks? This is part of why I'd surprisingly support a mileage/vehicle weight based tax in place of a gas tax... assuming I don't need weights and measures certifying my odometer every year.

[Drew Dowdell]

"The problem is paying for such improvements.

We're in a situation here in Pittsburgh that demonstrates how an unwillingness to raise taxes ends up hurting everyone."

raising taxes hurts everybody too though... but this is much more a philosophical debate than purely political. if taxes are raised, won't it probably cause people to leave the area, or at least buy their needs elsewhere, if they can? if either of these happens will the effective tax rate go down, or up? what will the revenues do? if that money has to be spent on those things, why not put some pork spending in a federal bill to get that money?

maybe they need to consolidate what can be then reassess what needs to be done? if it's such a good thing, donations are prolly accepted.

My argument is for a higher gas tax to pay for public transit nation wide. Corolla drivers don't care about driving, they only care about getting where they need to go conveniently and at the least cost possible. Given the option of very convenient public transit or driving, most Corolla drivers will choose the public transit. Getting as many people out of their Corollas and into a rail car as possible should be a goal of every one on this board. It will leave the road more open to those of us who enjoy driving. Instead of calling it a "Public Transportation Project", call it a "Corolla Extermination Project".

Raising those taxes would benefit me, because it would remove the frustration of driving to work both by providing convenient bus service so I don't have to drive and removing stupid Corolla drivers from the highway when I do need to drive. It would improve the air quality of region and it would tamp down the increase in gas prices long term by reducing demand.

So yes. A small tax like this can benefit all. A 10 cent per gallon fuel tax would cover the 2010 Port Authority operating deficit 2 1/2 times over. They could restore all the service they cut and then some to make the service even more convenient.

Assumptions: ((2.5m in Pittsburgh region * 10,000 miles driven annually estimated low in purpose) / 24 mpg average estimated high on purpose) ) / $47 million - the 2010 PATransit budget shortfall.

[Drew Dowdell]

With one notable exception (Avignon France, surrounded by a city wall) all of the cities in Europe that I've visited are just as drivable as any city in the U.S..... yet at the same time they are easier to drive in because there are less cars on the road in the first place.

Because of automotive costs... whats gas in the EU now? $11 a gallon? How much to park, insure, etc. Sure, the London congestion charge helps the people willing to pay, but it is still a sign of general car unfriendliness. If the US implemented a road levy so steep only 1% of the population could afford to drive, all Americas cities would be easy to drive... but that is hardly CAR FRIENDLY.

NYC is perfectly driveable for me. You simply go where the traffic isn't. I can get around NYC pretty quickly when I need to... but that is not making NYC car friendly.

I've lived there first without a car... then with. Not surprisingly, I prefer the car life. Only thing I'd so to improve my car life in NYC is get a Smart... so I could park it in a parking spot fragment.

Sometimes, keeping people off those roads is a form of subsidy. If keeping an extra 5,000 cars a day off of a bridge extends the life of that bridge by 5 - 7 years, that is a huge potential savings.

Good for the Garden State Parkway... but bad for US route 9... where those 5000 people have pummeled a bridge into closure... and now US route 9 is piped over the GSP bridge for free.

Of course, those 5000 cars do the same road wear as what.... 12 large trucks? This is part of why I'd surprisingly support a mileage/vehicle weight based tax in place of a gas tax... assuming I don't need weights and measures certifying my odometer every year.

But that's what I've been trying to point out. You don't need a car in most European cities. That extra fuel cost goes to make sure you have a light rail train 3 blocks from your house every 7 minutes.

Fuel economy is it's own weight based tax. A fully loaded dump truck gets what... 4 miles to the gallon? Weighing more causes more fuel use causes more fuel tax to be paid.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there where a lack of public transit infrastructure causes unintended results.

[SAmadei]

But that's what I've been trying to point out. You don't need a car in most European cities. That extra fuel cost goes to make sure you have a light rail train 3 blocks from your house every 7 minutes.

Have you ever shlepped home 200 pounds of groceries that 3 blocks? Commuting is easy in some cities, but anything else isn't. Of course, the high price of city living space keeps a lot of people from owning much to shlep. Some people in NYC get around like they are backpacking in the wilderness. My bag usually weighed 40~50 pounds... to go data center to data center.

Try flagging down a cab when you need a something large moved. Yeah, thats going to happen. If you are in the other boroughs, you get a gypsy cab, but then you are negotiating the entire trip.

"Want to go next block? $5 more dollar."

Getting stuff moved through the public transit infrastructure in NYC (arguably one of the best in the US) was a constant nightmare.

Hell, walking the 2 long blocks to the subway and 3/4 long blocks from the subway of my Manhattan commute twice a day was a nightmare most days... thats a 4 mile a day walk... in the heat... in the rain. And this was a relatively GOOD commute.

It was a 1 mile round trip walk under the FDR to get groceries. Ugh... I'm getting annoyed just remembering it.

Fuel economy is it's own weight based tax. A fully loaded dump truck gets what... 4 miles to the gallon? Weighing more causes more fuel use causes more fuel tax to be paid.

In theory, not in practice. That dumptruck is doing more than 6~7 times the damage your friends' CR-V is doing. Look at the graph (IIRC) posted earlier in the thread, for example... at least a 10x difference in damage and thats not taking into account how cars usually vastly outnumber big trucks.

[Croc]

This is from 2005, but none-the-less adds some insight into the average daily commutes of Americans: ABC News Poll

The larger, underlying point I was trying to make revolves around the distance needed to travel for one's daily commute. According to that poll, it's an average of 16 miles one way. Obviously, it's not necessarily a true reflection of the actual commutes experienced by all American's and it's surely changed after 6 years. Regardless, using that figure, most would need to enact major changes in ones work and living arrangement to viably live without an automobile. In most cases, public transit at that distance is far more inconvenient and generally underdeveloped, if it's available at all.

It's a chicken and egg problem.

If the cities weren't so wretched to live in, people wouldn't be trying to sprawl out to live with the Amish..... which gets back to my point - that dense urban living need not be awful. With a little bit of urban planning, urban living can not only be nice, but actually be desirable. However, one of the things it requires is a very strong public transit system.

Wrong on both counts. People live in the suburbs because it's cheap. You get more house, more space, more "shiny things" for your money. Why? Because cities are expensive. Why? Because the market dictates it so via supply and demand. There's a reason it's called "suburban wasteland." There's no culture, limited shopping, little social interaction.

Also, strong public transit is NOT a prerequisite to desirable urban living. If it were, Los Angeles would not exist. That's getting fixed--slowly but surely--but it still isn't a reality. To be fair, LA was built with the best public transit network in the world...but it grew and prospered after it was all ripped up.

[Drew Dowdell]

But that's what I've been trying to point out. You don't need a car in most European cities. That extra fuel cost goes to make sure you have a light rail train 3 blocks from your house every 7 minutes.

Have you ever shlepped home 200 pounds of groceries that 3 blocks? Commuting is easy in some cities, but anything else isn't. Of course, the high price of city living space keeps a lot of people from owning much to shlep. Some people in NYC get around like they are backpacking in the wilderness. My bag usually weighed 40~50 pounds... to go data center to data center.

Try flagging down a cab when you need a something large moved. Yeah, thats going to happen. If you are in the other boroughs, you get a gypsy cab, but then you are negotiating the entire trip.

"Want to go next block? $5 more dollar."

Getting stuff moved through the public transit infrastructure in NYC (arguably one of the best in the US) was a constant nightmare.

Hell, walking the 2 long blocks to the subway and 3/4 long blocks from the subway of my Manhattan commute twice a day was a nightmare most days... thats a 4 mile a day walk... in the heat... in the rain. And this was a relatively GOOD commute.

It was a 1 mile round trip walk under the FDR to get groceries. Ugh... I'm getting annoyed just remembering it.

Fuel economy is it's own weight based tax. A fully loaded dump truck gets what... 4 miles to the gallon? Weighing more causes more fuel use causes more fuel tax to be paid.

In theory, not in practice. That dumptruck is doing more than 6~7 times the damage your friends' CR-V is doing. Look at the graph (IIRC) posted earlier in the thread, for example... at least a 10x difference in damage and thats not taking into account how cars usually vastly outnumber big trucks.

Ell Oh Ell.

It's not an either/or proposition, nor did I propose it as such. The point of strong public transit is that it suits 75% to 95% of your needs. It's there for when you're not schleping ten, 20 pound sacks of potatoes home all at once.

Even in Cologne, where the public transit is superior, even just in ingress and egress, there are plenty of other options. There are no less than four car sharing companies who will lend you a car for a few Euro an hour. There are fleets and fleets of S-class, R-Class, M-class and E-class Mercedes cabs - take your pick. There are specialty moving services that hire out Transit Connects or Mercedes Sprinters by the hour also.

As for the long walk, if you're eating 200lbs of food every week, the walk will probably do you good. If your bag really weighs 50lbs (more than six 1 gallon containers of milk, or the weight of two 1u servers, really? ) , buy a roller cart. When I was in NYC for the auto show, my two rollerbags were just murder to drag around with me and they have a weight limit of 22lbs.

Stop thinking just NYC terms. I've seen what is possible with an awesome transportation network. You can live without a car if the rest of the infrastructure is there..... and it will support your either extreme exaggerations or extreme transportation needs.... either way, your covered.

I will say that there is one big lifestyle difference between the US and the EU that you point out. And that is buying food in mass quantities. The Europeans prefer their food very fresh. There are butchers, bakers, and produce markets everywhere. They don't feel the need to buy 200 lbs of food at once because there is fresh food right up the street.... and they are, on average, healthier for it too.

[Drew Dowdell]

This is from 2005, but none-the-less adds some insight into the average daily commutes of Americans: ABC News Poll

The larger, underlying point I was trying to make revolves around the distance needed to travel for one's daily commute. According to that poll, it's an average of 16 miles one way. Obviously, it's not necessarily a true reflection of the actual commutes experienced by all American's and it's surely changed after 6 years. Regardless, using that figure, most would need to enact major changes in ones work and living arrangement to viably live without an automobile. In most cases, public transit at that distance is far more inconvenient and generally underdeveloped, if it's available at all.

It's a chicken and egg problem.

If the cities weren't so wretched to live in, people wouldn't be trying to sprawl out to live with the Amish..... which gets back to my point - that dense urban living need not be awful. With a little bit of urban planning, urban living can not only be nice, but actually be desirable. However, one of the things it requires is a very strong public transit system.

Wrong on both counts. People live in the suburbs because it's cheap. You get more house, more space, more "shiny things" for your money. Why? Because cities are expensive. Why? Because the market dictates it so via supply and demand. There's a reason it's called "suburban wasteland." There's no culture, limited shopping, little social interaction.

Also, strong public transit is NOT a prerequisite to desirable urban living. If it were, Los Angeles would not exist. That's getting fixed--slowly but surely--but it still isn't a reality. To be fair, LA was built with the best public transit network in the world...but it grew and prospered after it was all ripped up.

I would posit that LA is desirable in spite of it's infrastructure, not because of it. Climate, culture, and location location location. It's cheap to live in suburbs because fuel costs are low.

[Croc]

This is from 2005, but none-the-less adds some insight into the average daily commutes of Americans: ABC News Poll

The larger, underlying point I was trying to make revolves around the distance needed to travel for one's daily commute. According to that poll, it's an average of 16 miles one way. Obviously, it's not necessarily a true reflection of the actual commutes experienced by all American's and it's surely changed after 6 years. Regardless, using that figure, most would need to enact major changes in ones work and living arrangement to viably live without an automobile. In most cases, public transit at that distance is far more inconvenient and generally underdeveloped, if it's available at all.

It's a chicken and egg problem.

If the cities weren't so wretched to live in, people wouldn't be trying to sprawl out to live with the Amish..... which gets back to my point - that dense urban living need not be awful. With a little bit of urban planning, urban living can not only be nice, but actually be desirable. However, one of the things it requires is a very strong public transit system.

Wrong on both counts. People live in the suburbs because it's cheap. You get more house, more space, more "shiny things" for your money. Why? Because cities are expensive. Why? Because the market dictates it so via supply and demand. There's a reason it's called "suburban wasteland." There's no culture, limited shopping, little social interaction.

Also, strong public transit is NOT a prerequisite to desirable urban living. If it were, Los Angeles would not exist. That's getting fixed--slowly but surely--but it still isn't a reality. To be fair, LA was built with the best public transit network in the world...but it grew and prospered after it was all ripped up.

I would posit that LA is desirable in spite of it's infrastructure, not because of it. Climate, culture, and location location location. It's cheap to live in suburbs because fuel costs are low.

Of course, but clearly a thriving urban metropolis is not dependent on a strong public transit system. Though that really is the one thing LA doesn't have.

As for the suburbs, well, commuting 30-60 minutes during rush from the suburbs to the city job certainly costs a lot more in fuel than a closer, more expensive location...and time away from family...stress of commuting...drive, drive, drive from the heart of a non-connected cul-de-sac neighborhood to piano lessons (careful, don't go more than 20 or the busybody on the corner will report you to the neighborhood association), soccer practice, and the Rotary club.

But you get a bigger house (made cheaply and just a slightly different shade of beige than your neighbor's), more land (but no storm sewers and often septic system), and more shiny things (for when you're not stuck in traffic).

No it really comes down to wanting what you can't afford. In the LA region, people wanted the house with the pool and all the nice suburban things, but they weren't willing to pay for them. So they built all these places out in Palmdale and Moreno Valley and commuted for 1.5+ hours each way. All in the name of square footage...you know, for the 3 hours a day they weren't working, commuting or sleeping.

[Drew Dowdell]

it boggles my mind that people even consider that living. I get annoyed at just my 30 minute bus ride, but at least it is better than sitting in traffic for an hour just to cover 10 miles.

[Croc]

it boggles my mind that people even consider that living. I get annoyed at just my 30 minute bus ride, but at least it is better than sitting in traffic for an hour just to cover 10 miles.

I'm with you there. Of course, Palmdale and Moreno Valley are now "Gated Ghettos" as those people certainly aren't "living" now after the market tanked and their real estate became virtually worthless...for the very reasons it's inherently worthless to the two of us.

[loki]

Raising those taxes would benefitme , ....

this is how i read it, and i think this is why the nation as a whole is tired of "just raise taxes". it is niether fair, nor better than lowering expenses in budgets. it would be nice to "exterminate corrola drivers", but there are other ways to do that , which would include lowering barriers to increase car types available. why not just advocate a "C4C" program for people that don't enjoy driving? bring in your car and you'll trade up to a smart, or something with 2 wheels?

this shows a use of politics for "special interests" which is how we got here. did you think of it that way?

[loki]

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there where a lack of public transit infrastructure causes unintended consequences.

corrected. results mean an experiment is over. consequenses can linger on past the experiment.

lack of public transit cannot cause unintended consequences. this should be shown as where a market should quickly grow up. unintended consequences can only mean there was a wanted outcome. when you don't play "Engineer" with something, what ever the outcome is, it is, there is nothing unintended. this is how a free market behaves, thousands, if not millions or billions of choices/actions create the outcome, good or bad.

from wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences .. 3rd point... A perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended (when an intended solution makes a problem worse), such as when a policy has a perverse incentive that causes actions opposite to what was intended.

and more

The idea of unintended consequences dates back at least to Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment, and consequentialism (judging by results)

here's a intervention being proposed by nashville, a video about it. either they plan on those consequences or not, but it's still an intervention by gov.

Edited May 11, 2011 by loki

[Drew Dowdell]

Raising those taxes would benefitme , ....

this is how i read it, and i think this is why the nation as a whole is tired of "just raise taxes". it is niether fair, nor better than lowering expenses in budgets. it would be nice to "exterminate corrola drivers", but there are other ways to do that , which would include lowering barriers to increase car types available. why not just advocate a "C4C" program for people that don't enjoy driving? bring in your car and you'll trade up to a smart, or something with 2 wheels?

this shows a use of politics for "special interests" which is how we got here. did you think of it that way?

Because that doesn't address the problem of traffic congestion or spending $50+ million dollars to enlarge a pair of tunnels? A project who's budget doesn't even pass the sniff test.

Raising the taxes in this case would benefit everyone. Me, the Corolla drivers, the Port Authority, the asthma sufferers, people who drive in to work every day and can't take a bus for some reason, it would help downtown traffic/congestion, it would reduce the demand on fossil fuels... in fact, the only entity that I can think of who would suffer for it is the Pittsburgh Parking Authority which is owned by the city (and not accidentally, benefits directly from the Port Authority's demise)

The 30%/30%/15% service cuts that we've experienced over the past 12 months have caused HUGE, NOTICEABLE problems here in the city.

[Drew Dowdell]

Loki,

What you posted isn't even relevant. Nothing in my proposals involves me or anyone else giving up their V8s. All it does is make the option of public transit available to more people who can then choose to use it or not.

There is a minimum level of service frequency that is required for any transit system to maintain viable ridership. That minimum is actually rather high. That means the overhead is rather high because sometimes you are running buses that are half full. It also means that as a profit making venture, public transit is doomed. It must have subsidies to operate.

In Pittsburgh and many other cities, the transit has been so much that even people who don't want to drive and want to take the bus cannot do so because service is no longer offered.

Offering people the option to get out of their cars and use public transit is NOT AT ALL like the situation in the video you described.