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.
Externalities of private transportation are rarely ever accurately priced.
Individually, the cost of driving to work is simply a function of time, yesterday's gas prices and parking (and other variables). What should probably be included is the burden of road maintenance and congestion.
Road maintenance can be internalized through user fees. Road congestion is not an externality.
Of course the fact that an 8 lane highway might be only used to capacity six hours a day. The rest of the time four are plenty. There must be a better way to charge for the extra capacity.
Of course the fact that an 8 lane highway might be only used to capacity six hours a day. The rest of the time four are plenty. There must be a better way to charge for the extra capacity.
Where does that happen? In Denver the roads are over-capacity about six hours a day; at capacity about twelve, maybe under-capacity six hours.
Yeah my understanding of places like Seattle is the Congestion pricing had some effect but it had the much larger effect of shifting people to other routes. Which seems problematic. Basically if an area already has awful traffic most people who have no reason to travel on rush hour already avoid it. So the percentage of people you prevent from traveling is small. In theory it would work best when a city has an easier alternative like public transport.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57821
Quote:
Originally Posted by East of the River
Yeah my understanding of places like Seattle is the Congestion pricing had some effect but it had the much larger effect of shifting people to other routes. Which seems problematic. Basically if an area already has awful traffic most people who have no reason to travel on rush hour already avoid it. So the percentage of people you prevent from traveling is small. In theory it would work best when a city has an easier alternative like public transport.
Yes, and in many cases, the free route is less direct and longer, so it has the additional effect of adding to pollution.
Yes, and in many cases, the free route is less direct and longer, so it has the additional effect of adding to pollution.
You see that wherever there is a free route parallel to a turnpike. The turnpike offers faster travel and, more important, the ability to keep moving. But the free route often has lower speed limits and numerous stops. It is a known fact that starting and stopping causes more pollution than going at a steady speed.
04-30-2018, 12:13 AM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 9 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,920,579 times
Reputation: 4052
Even further complication that is not necessary. There are other legitimate viable ways to severely reduce our own ramifications on density. Encourage public transportation outside of cars dependency not allowing enough liberal road room when we maximize upon this resource. Affordability is justifiable crucial motto. First, let’s get rid of our own prohibitive costs on the subway system, and then motivate other alternatives. Prove what works gradually with our own careful expression of habitable filter bubbling.
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.
