Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As most people live in and around cities, and not out in the boonies in Podunkville, the idea of the "open highway" is fiction. Congestion is the natural result of the concentration of uses--jobs, entertainment, residence. If you start from fiction as your baseline, you get absurdity as your expectation.
Congestion is common but not continuous. I've made good time on the infamous I-270 in Maryland, the equally infamous Capitol Beltway, the Schuylkill Expressway into Philadelphia, and even through the Holland Tunnel into NYC.
Quote:
And, considering that most people drive alone with an empty car (or truck or SUV) most of the time, the net benefit--comparing total benefit to you and society vs. the costs borne by you and society--is negative for full-sized vehicles.
If you don't count intangibles, there's no benefits for a full-size vehicle over the very smallest vehicle that will do the job. No room in economics for luxury, yet another reason it's the dismal science.
But, hey, if you need milk for a recipe, better get in your car because that big box hypermarket ran almost all the convenience stores out of business.
There's a convenience store at the end of my block, the produce store up the street sells milk, as does the drug store next to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
I've made good time on the infamous I-270 in Maryland, the equally infamous Capitol Beltway, the Schuylkill Expressway into Philadelphia
LOL, I get so bewildered when I arrive at my destination a half hour early because I planned to get stuck on the Schuykill ... and didn't.
So, if something doesn't exist in a city it doesn't exist at all? This is "out of sight, out of existence", instead of "out of sight, out of mind". Urbanist myopia, indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
If you don't count intangibles, there's no benefits for a full-size vehicle over the very smallest vehicle that will do the job. No room in economics for luxury, yet another reason it's the dismal science.
Exactly, and just how do you calculate "social cost" and "social benefit" (or some such) without imposing arbitrary personal assumptions about need, efficiency, comfort, et cetera? That's closely related to the reasons why the open market works so much better than command-and-control. Also, what do the costs/benefits to society of a full-size car have to do with my point about being able to better understand car dependency if you have a go-anywhere/do-anything vehicle as opposed to an underpowered shoebox compact?
An analogous situation extends to public transit. If your idea of a subway is something like NYC circa 1980 you would have trouble understanding why anyone would glorify a subway or even any public transit. On the other hand, if you're used to Dubai or Seoul circa 2010 you won't have any trouble understanding why people like subways.
So, if something doesn't exist in a city it doesn't exist at all? This is "out of sight, out of existence", instead of "out of sight, out of mind". Urbanist myopia, indeed.
Though this forum is urban planning not rural or small town planning. Completely open freeways aren't the typical experience in most congested urban areas (including many of their suburbs). You could tell someone in Long Island that they can't appreciate the full joy of a car since traffic conditions are often a bit clogged, but an open highway isn't really part of the local's driving experience; it's irrelevant. That doesn't mean a car is useless, being able to average 35 mph door to door is acceptable for many in a populated area. [35 mph sounds low, but remember you have to get off the highway, lights slow things down, etc.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
An analogous situation extends to public transit. If your idea of a subway is something like NYC circa 1980 you would have trouble understanding why anyone would glorify a subway or even any public transit.
I know the NYC subway ridership has risen since the 80s, partly from changing demographics but some must be improvement in conditions. I know some people of my parent's generation who used to live in the city got in the habit of avoiding transit from what they learned when they were younger while people of my generation don't really have that habit. Looking at photos of the subway from back then, it's still whiter than it'd be today, mainly because of demographic change.
Congestion is common but not continuous. I've made good time on the infamous I-270 in Maryland, the equally infamous Capitol Beltway, the Schuylkill Expressway into Philadelphia, and even through the Holland Tunnel into NYC.
Still, congestion is a part of life during peak hours (for most metros). If you want to talk about traffic at usage troughs, that's not valuable to the average person. Yes, the freeway may be almost empty at 2 pm or 2 am, but that's not relevant to the general population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
If you don't count intangibles, there's no benefits for a full-size vehicle over the very smallest vehicle that will do the job. No room in economics for luxury, yet another reason it's the dismal science.
Luxury and automobile size are only linked because we say they are linked. In reality, a compact car could have heated and cooled leather seats, an 8 speaker Bose systems, etc.
More to the point, I discussed vehicle size and usage vs. cost, not "luxury." Most people drive alone, most of the time. That's a repeatedly verified fact. SUVs are rarely used for sport or utility; but mostly for lonely commuting. Also repeatedly verified. So, the benefits go entirely to the individual, meanwhile the costs are shared with society. That the user finds the car to be luxurious is irrelevant within that argument.
Now that gave me a laugh. Supermarkets have driven the convenience stores out of business? 7-11 did close both its stores in my suburban city, but good heavens, you can buy milk at the gas stations, milk at Walgreen's, Target, Walmart, and just about everywhere else. Hey, it's a free market. If 7-11 wasn't making it, tough darts.
It's hardly a free market, but that's an aside.
Answer this, are any of those places to buy milk close enough and comfortable enough to walk to? If it's more than half a mile the answer is no. If you have to walk along or cross a major roadway (60 or more feet across; so, 2 lanes each way plus parking and a median, or 3 lanes each way and a median) or under or over a freeway, the answer is no.
Exactly, and just how do you calculate "social cost" and "social benefit" (or some such) without imposing arbitrary personal assumptions about need, efficiency, comfort, et cetera?
Well, no, that's not accurate. External costs are measurable without, generally, the imposition of "arbitrary personal assumptions."
Asthma and other respiratory and circulatory illness rates are higher the closer one gets to a freeway is measurable; the cost of which is not borne by the driver. The amount of oil which leaks in to storm drains is measurable. The driver doesn't pay a usage fee for roadway access because the roadway is provided as the result of fuel and other taxes which are decoupled from roadway use rates.
The "personal assumptions" come in because economists, like everyone else, are human and have passions and beliefs which compel them to act.
Answer this, are any of those places to buy milk close enough and comfortable enough to walk to? If it's more than half a mile the answer is no. If you have to walk along or cross a major roadway (60 or more feet across; so, 2 lanes each way plus parking and a median, or 3 lanes each way and a median) or under or over a freeway, the answer is no.
Whatever you want to call it, if it's not working out for 7-11, that's their problem.
Where are these guidelines for walkable written, anyway?
I'm not going to respond to a command to answer a question, either.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 08-27-2013 at 07:24 PM..
Well, no, that's not accurate. External costs are measurable without, generally, the imposition of "arbitrary personal assumptions."
Asthma and other respiratory and circulatory illness rates are higher the closer one gets to a freeway is measurable; the cost of which is not borne by the driver. The amount of oil which leaks in to storm drains is measurable. The driver doesn't pay a usage fee for roadway access because the roadway is provided as the result of fuel and other taxes which are decoupled from roadway use rates.
The "personal assumptions" come in because economists, like everyone else, are human and have passions and beliefs which compel them to act.
Link?
The hell a driver doesn't pay for roadway access. Gas taxes are used to build roads. People who drive more miles pay more gas tax. People who drive gas-guzzlers pay more gas tax.
from an internet search. There are more out there if interested.
Quote:
The hell a driver doesn't pay for roadway access. Gas taxes are used to build roads. People who drive more miles pay more gas tax. People who drive gas-guzzlers pay more gas tax.
He was referring to health costs imposed by air pollution from vehicles, which are definitely not covered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
