Toll increase proposed for the Dulles Toll Road (house, schools)

[qwertman]

Originally Posted by VRE332

I like what you said, but IMO "if" the Metro takes drivers off the road, it will just promote more sprawl.

how more sprawl? The areas near current metro stations are the least "sprawled" of the whole DC area.

[qwertman]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

Good. They should begin implementing tolls on the other crowded highways, as well.

No one likes taxes or fees, but I don't think it's fair that inner city dwellers who don't even own cares are required to heavily subsidize the automobile system and transportation network. Meanwhile, the public transit system is dismal, so it's not like they get an equal bargain.

Either public transit should be built up and subsidized in a similar fashion to the auto system or we should treat both as if they have to "break even".

I agree the road network is heavily subsidized, but so is public transit! How much higher do you think the current metro rates would be if it wasn't subsidized?

[VRE332]

Originally Posted by qwertman

I agree the road network is heavily subsidized, but so is public transit! How much higher do you think the current metro rates would be if it wasn't subsidized?

yea even VRE is heavily subsidized. They have numbers posted on their website. I was quite suprised how much it is subsidized. It does not even include monthly travel vouchers provided to Federal employees to pay for the tickets.

[DiderotsGhost]

Originally Posted by qwertman

I agree the road network is heavily subsidized, but so is public transit! How much higher do you think the current metro rates would be if it wasn't subsidized?

Public transit is subsidized, but it's expected to "break even." The Metro in particular receives very lousy support from governments.

My complaint isn't subsidies so much as the distortions in the market created by policymakers' preferences for the auto/road system. In essence, there's a basic hypocrisy here. Policymakers are willing to dramatically expand the auto/road system with little hesitation and little thought to the costs. However, expanding public transit always results in ridiculous complaints that it should be expected to "break even". Nevermind that few people would use the road system if it were nothing but a patchwork of disjointed stretches of road with high usage fees and very little connectivity.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by qwertman

the metro will relieve congestion on the road.

In theory. But I doubt you'd really notice the difference.

ps. I'm a fan of metro and an even bigger fan of busses. I take them both all the time--I never drive when I go into the city. But even though I'm a fan let's not kid ourselves that it's going to make a noticeable difference in road congestion.

[DiderotsGhost]

Originally Posted by qwertman

how more sprawl? The areas near current metro stations are the least "sprawled" of the whole DC area.

I'm a bit confused by your response here. Since sprawl is essentially defined by how spread out residential areas become from urban cores they are attached to, DC-proper and the inner suburbs would by definition, be the 'least sprawled' (that's simplifying it a bit, but generally true). Maybe you are agreeing.


Subsidies for the auto/road system create more sprawl by hiding both direct transportation costs and hidden external costs from consumers. Those costs get shifted to taxpayers in general, so it appears that living in the deep suburbs is economically more efficient than living closer to the urban core. This creates market distortions which favor suburban sprawl over upward building. (Consider the obvious costs, but also consider the less obvious ones --- like the fact that more governmental services are needed to cover a larger area.)

There are other factors, as well, but I'm of the belief that the vast excess of suburban sprawl in America isn't a coincidence. It's a direct result of our transportation, fee, and taxation systems.

[DiderotsGhost]

Originally Posted by FromVAtoNC

In theory. But I doubt you'd really notice the difference.

ps. I'm a fan of metro and an even bigger fan of busses. I take them both all the time--I never drive when I go into the city. But even though I'm a fan let's not kid ourselves that it's going to make a noticeable difference in road congestion.

I don't think it's unrealistic at all to expect less congestion. When I lived in the Atlanta metro, traffic in the areas not serviced by the MARTA system was noticeably worse than traffic in areas that were serviced by it. Driving outside the perimeter was completely miserable, but once I got inside the Perimeter (where the MARTA system ran), it was significantly alleviated. Of course, there are various other factors involved in that, too, but I also think the MARTA played a significant role.

However, keep in mind, the DC Metro system is probably the single most expensive public transit system in the nation, so maybe you're right and there's still little economic incentive to ride the Metro.

[qwertman]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

Public transit is subsidized, but it's expected to "break even." The Metro in particular receives very lousy support from governments.

My complaint isn't subsidies so much as the distortions in the market created by policymakers' preferences for the auto/road system. In essence, there's a basic hypocrisy here. Policymakers are willing to dramatically expand the auto/road system with little hesitation and little thought to the costs. However, expanding public transit always results in ridiculous complaints that it should be expected to "break even". Nevermind that few people would use the road system if it were nothing but a patchwork of disjointed stretches of road with high usage fees and very little connectivity.

I absolutely agree with that

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwertman
how more sprawl? The areas near current metro stations are the least "sprawled" of the whole DC area.

I'm a bit confused by your response here. Since sprawl is essentially defined by how spread out residential areas become from urban cores they are attached to, DC-proper and the inner suburbs would by definition, be the 'least sprawled' (that's simplifying it a bit, but generally true). Maybe you are agreeing.


Subsidies for the auto/road system create more sprawl by hiding both direct transportation costs and hidden external costs from consumers. Those costs get shifted to taxpayers in general, so it appears that living in the deep suburbs is economically more efficient than living closer to the urban core. This creates market distortions which favor suburban sprawl over upward building. (Consider the obvious costs, but also consider the less obvious ones --- like the fact that more governmental services are needed to cover a larger area.)

There are other factors, as well, but I'm of the belief that the vast excess of suburban sprawl in America isn't a coincidence. It's a direct result of our transportation, fee, and taxation systems.

I agree again. the poster said "'if' the Metro takes drivers off the road, it will just promote more sprawl." I think the opposite. The expansion of the roads network promotes more sprawl. The metro creates hubs of more dense development, the opposite of sprawl.

[terrence81]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

I don't think it's unrealistic at all to expect less congestion. When I lived in the Atlanta metro, traffic in the areas not serviced by the MARTA system was noticeably worse than traffic in areas that were serviced by it. Driving outside the perimeter was completely miserable, but once I got inside the Perimeter (where the MARTA system ran), it was significantly alleviated. Of course, there are various other factors involved in that, too, but I also think the MARTA played a significant role.

However, keep in mind, the DC Metro system is probably the single most expensive public transit system in the nation, so maybe you're right and there's still little economic incentive to ride the Metro.

Interesting point. Do you think that the traffic being lighter inside the perimeter had more to do with a higher percentage of people not being able to afford cars? Also there are far more people inside DC's beltway than Atlanta's perimeter. Do you think that would have anything to do with it?

I used to go to the ATL twice a month but only on the weekends so can't speak too much about Atlanta traffic.

But I will say with certainty that Atlanta's MARTA doesn't go anywhere near as many places as DC's metro.

[Samara11]

Originally Posted by VRE332

I like what you said, but IMO "if" the Metro takes drivers off the road, it will just promote more sprawl.

Well, there's already sprawl everywhere and IMO its natural, with the population increase. What else are you going to do with the population growth?

I know.... lets keep erecting hundreds of new high-rise condo buildings within one city and make people with kids live there. That way everyone can walk next door to work, right. No need for cars and gas, those are evil.

And yes, no need for schools too, we can have the kids learn on the internet.... the schools just take up too much land space.
Kids can just stay home, get education on the internet in the morning, then watch TV for entertainment, then play video games. Why do you need parks, tot lots, libraries, etc? Lets just keep the little buggers at home. Better yet, lets not have kids... no more population increase and no more worries about sprawl.

Please dont take this personally, its not directed at you... its just that the way people talk about sprawl is just plain strange to me.