Roads/Parking lots are taking up too much room (suburbs, development, streetcar)

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by nybbler

No, it isn't. Slow moving buses clog up the streets. Money is taken from drivers to pay for public transit. The existence of public transit is used as an excuse not to build or fix roads. Then, once they've got you stuck on public transit, they start tightening the noose. They cut schedules and routes, reduce the number of seats so you're standing up the whole time, increase fees, and generally behave as you'd expect a monopoly to behave.


Car lanes do not add cars. Highways are not some sort of growth medium in which cars replicate.

Well, slow-moving buses (unless just run terribly) are usually the local buses that have to make a lot of stop and start. These are supposed to be for fairly short trips that are a pain to a walk to, but not enough of a pain to get on to. So let's take the length of that bus route and take all the people who get on and off it and instead put them into individual vehicles by themselves and then also have them hustle for parking space both at their destination (so designate enough parking spaces that will take up a lot of room or you can have people drive around for a bit and utilizing up more road space while looking for parking) and then when they get back from their destination. YEA! That's a great idea! We should get all those people on to individual cars and have enough expressways and parking spaces for everyone. Ah hell, I just had another idea! Let's just pave the entire city over and everyone lives in RVs on one giant surface lot! That way when you take a trip, you won't even have anywhere to go to, and so you'll already be there!

Also, car lanes, strangely enough, do add more cars, but not directly. No one said highways did it to themselves. It's more that when you build a car lane, it quickly reaches carrying capacity again and begets more private car usage and the necessity for more car lanes. Car lanes are also kind of inefficient at this moment, because doubling the number of car lanes doesn't necessarily mean doubling the capacity since people are allowed to switch lanes and often the on/off ramps are only on one side of the highway off of one specific lane. I forget what the exact numbers are, but there's been a lot of traffic studies about how additional car lanes have a really bad diminishing returns problem.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by nybbler

Car lanes do not add cars. Highways are not some sort of growth medium in which cars replicate.

Actually, no, that's exactly what happens. Adding highway lanes and new highways promotes horizontal growth along those highways--the freer traffic is, the more growth it can accommodate. Eventually, the highway reaches the same level of congestion as before the highway expansion. Adding highway lanes to ease traffic is like deciding to lose weight but just buying bigger pants.

If by "public transit" you're talking buses, they also run on the roads (thus necessitating their repair), but one full bus takes up the space of dozens of cars during rush hour, so every bus takes cars out of your way.

Not sure where you think public transit has a transportation monopoly, but you're wildly wrong there--far more frequently, the automobile is the monopoly, as much of the United States simply isn't served by transit--if you can't drive, you can't live there, or only with great difficulty. Transit budgets get slashed because folks assume they're only for the poor, which leads to the cuts you describe, not some diabolical plan to crowd people.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by cisco kid

When you are stuck in traffic behind what seems like a million cars, try to imagine if all those cars were replaced by pedestrians or bike riders. Suddenly, the congestion is gone.





A single street car can replace 50-70 single-occupant private automobiles.

Yea, but who in their right mind would trade their car for a bike... or worse, their own two feet? The automobile is the superior mode of transportation and gives the most mobility with the least amount of effort.

It's the "tragedy of the commons" playing out yet again.

[memph]

Originally Posted by HighPlainsDrifter73

I just read that article and while it's interesting, a population of 1 billion in the US would likely mean that the global population would be way beyond what we currently have. This type of population level globally would create enormous challenges in more ways than space to put people. How about problems like sufficient energy to run everything, sufficient food to feed everyone on the planet, drinking water and other things. I don't believe we will ever hit that population level either here or globally. The planet doesn't have that much carrying capacity for a population like that. Population growth will inevitably slow down and peak out.

Well, I think that the USA will continue to be attractive to immigrants from poorer countries, so even if the world's population only increases from 7 billion today to 9 billion or so, the USA could probably growth that much if it allowed enough immigrants into the country. As for whether or not the USA would want to allow in that many immigrants, or whether it could support 1 billion people, I'm not sure. It certainly could support that kind of population if Americans lived more modest lifestyles, but it might be difficult to have that while at the same time continuing to attract immigrants. The USA has more arable land and more cultivated land than any country in the world for instance, followed closely by India and China which both have more than 1 billion people.

Also, I suspect that the estimate for 1 billion by 2100 is based off the idea that the United States would grow by the same percentage as in the 90s. I would expect the United States' population growth to be more linear than geometric (ie it will grow by x people per year, instead of x percent per year).

Here are the 2100 populations based on a few potential models

Geometric growth of the 90s (+13.2%/10years): 942 million
Geometric growth of the 00s (+9.7%/10years): 710 million
Linear growth of the 90s (+32.7 million/10years): 603 million
Linear growth of the 00s (+27.3 million/10years): 555 million

[Carlite]

The opportunity cost--all the better things that could be done--from urban parking space, especially surface parking lots--is enormous, economically it's counted in the many billions. And don't think that adding parking will improve freeway traffic, adding parking will draw cars and make freeway traffic work. We need to start working with a new model for mobility, more like Germany's (where people own cars but don't have to use them for every single trip).

[jetgraphics]

Ah, back to the 1890s, when the most efficient form of land transportation was sweeping the nation - and the world - electric traction rail. Between 1890 and 1920, the USA had the most track mileage laid, both mainline and urban.

Think about it - if the government didn't cripple it with taxes and regulations, and the petroleum boom didn't occur in the USA, and the machinations of GM, et al, didn't eradicate streetcars (trams) from America, what a different country it would be.

90% of cargo and passenger service would be by electric traction rail, and the remainder by other vehicles. There would be no huge expenditures on paved roads, parking lots, and automobile infrastructure. No superhighways. People would not be spending 1/4 to 1/3 their income on "car support". Compact cities and villages would predominate. And America wouldn't be consuming the greatest amount of energy per capita to support itself.

--------------------------
A quick comparison of costs

In 1920, 90% of all travel was by electric traction rail (streetcars), average fare - $0.05. ($36.50 annual cost for taking a round trip every day; 730 trips x 5 cents.)
In 1920, you could buy a brand new Ford Model T for $300.00
In 1935, you could buy a brand new Plymouth for $565.00.
In 1979, you could buy a Honda Accord for $7000.00.
In 2012, you can buy a Ford Focus for $16,500.00

[cisco kid]

Originally Posted by Chango

Yea, but who in their right mind would trade their car for a bike... or worse, their own two feet? The automobile is the superior mode of transportation and gives the most mobility with the least amount of effort.

It's the "tragedy of the commons" playing out yet again.

500 million people in Europe, for one.


And 56% of Americans prefer to live in walkable communities, if they were available. But it's not a realistic option for most. Even though the demand for them is very high, walkable mixed use communities are few and far in between. Which makes them very expensive and probably unaffordable for most who would like to live in them.


Study: Americans prefer walkable communities - MSN Real Estate

[nei]

Originally Posted by Chango

Yea, but who in their right mind would trade their car for a bike... or worse, their own two feet? The automobile is the superior mode of transportation and gives the most mobility with the least amount of effort.

Me, at least in good weather. Assuming I count as being in my right mind.

Also depends on the trip. For shorter distances, especially an extra 5-10 minutes of time doesn't matter, bicycle and / foot is superior. If parking is limited, cars can be inferior to all 3. As if parking lots taking up lots of room don't exist, the car loses its advantage. Irrelevant in many places, of course.

[nei]

Originally Posted by wburg

Actually, no, that's exactly what happens. Adding highway lanes and new highways promotes horizontal growth along those highways--the freer traffic is, the more growth it can accommodate. Eventually, the highway reaches the same level of congestion as before the highway expansion. Adding highway lanes to ease traffic is like deciding to lose weight but just buying bigger pants.

The same is true of transit, if transit dominates the mode share. In the early 1900s, NYC subway builders thought that building more lines would alleviate passenger congestion. Instead they find that the trains were as crowded as before, the ridership just increased.

The difference though with highways is highways become slower with high volume; transit except in the most extreme cases does not (though streetcars will eventually jam on city streets; one of the reasons they were removed from Manhattan), just becomes more uncomfortable.

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by nei

The same is true of transit, if transit dominates the mode share. In the early 1900s, NYC subway builders thought that building more lines would alleviate passenger congestion. Instead they find that the trains were as crowded as before, the ridership just increased.

In neither case is the extra capacity causing the additional traffic. What's happening is that there's existing demand for the service, demand which is not being fulfilled. When you open a new highway or lane and it's full immediately, the volume is mostly coming from alternate routes. With transit, it's likely alternate times.

The difference though with highways is highways become slower with high volume; transit except in the most extreme cases does not (though streetcars will eventually jam on city streets; one of the reasons they were removed from Manhattan), just becomes more uncomfortable.

Transit -- even on dedicated ROWs -- does slow at high volume, it's just that the vehicles don't become any slower (though dwell times increase). Instead, customers find they are unable to board the vehicle because it is full, and have to wait for another.