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.
But there must be a practical limit of how much people would travel congestion or no congestion. And any induced trips from residential-induced sprawl or commuting to further jobs would time — people don't change jobs or especially move overnight.
Not really. People tale into consideration how long and by what method they will commute. I live in an area prone to snow storms and I know that I should beware any job that takes more than 30-40 mins driving. Now 30-40 mins. driving can be two very different things in rush or outside of rush in terms of the distance traveled and my experience is that expressways rarely are congested outside of rush. The reason why 30-40 mins is an problem in this location is that an snow storm could turn an 30 min trip into an 1 hour and 30 min. trip. If I lived somewhere like Texas where snow is rare, I could risk an 1 hour commute.
If anything Metra(our commuter rail) allows the burbs to sprawl because instead of an 1 hour drive that risks turning into 3 hours it is an 1 hour or less train ride where all you need to do is read an paper and the train usually isn't hindered by snow(it can be by extreme cold or an snow storm that causes workers not to be able to get to work). You only need to drive to the station and that could be an short distance.
For an city dweller Metra is less useful becuase there often are not any buses or public transit on the other end and so you have to drive to the burbs when you work in the burbs.
I'm all for congestion pricing. But you have to give people alternatives to driving along with that. Good transit, walkable urban areas and neighborhoods, etc. Or they wont have a choice but to drive, and will bite the bullet on the congestion charges.
The congestion charge in London was originally set at £5 when the program was first introduced on February 17, 2003. Ken Livingstone, the Major of London, said this at the time…
After his re-election in 2004, he promptly raised the congestion charge to £8 for private vehicles and £7 for commercial traffic. He then supported raising the charge to £10 by 2008. Currently, the congestion charge sits at £11.50 a day.
What about the fact that in order to widen a roadway more Right of Way is required. Buying right of way means homes and businesses have to move, often further away from each other. That increases demand for travel.
Not true. An upper deck can be built over an existing freeway.
I'm all for congestion pricing. But you have to give people alternatives to driving along with that.
Good transit, walkable urban areas and neighborhoods, etc. Or they wont have a choice but to drive,
and will bite the bullet on the congestion charges.
Quote:
Has the congestion charge reduced congestion in central London? Not according to INRIX:
BBC News - Traffic jams in London 'getting worse'
The flawed assumption of congestion pricing is that people are being irrational and not using transit.
With congestion pricing there are two possibilities. The first probability which is what politicians are counting on is that the traffic is captive and thus will not change with price. In short an simple tax. The second probability is that traffic is flexible in which case people decide not to make the trip and there are profound consequences for this one(less economic activity in the city).
People evaluate what is the best method of getting to work or downtown and there are many factors such as health(some people should not be exposed to the elements), transfers(which are both an risk in terms of being late as well as crime and an hassle), need to carry passengers and need to carry cargo as well as need to go somewhere else after work. These factors often make the car the best method of transport.
Here is an example of what an car can do and what public transit sucks at. Lets say you have two children, one needs to get to school and other to the grandparents(or other trusted and affordable day care) as well as get yourself to work. In theory you could send the oldest on the school bus, but that may involve getting the both of you up earlier as the kid needs you to cook breakfast and watch him out. If you use the car you can leave latter and the both of you can get some more sleep.
The second child's day care might not be anywhere on an route to work. The day care could be a few blocks to the east and your work way to the north. This means you need to wait on the bus, travel east, drop kid off, cross the street, wait on the bus(again) travel west, wait on the bus(in God's know what kind of weather) travel north to work(which itself could be somewhere with high crime). This is much simpler in an car.
You could then either have the Grandparents pick up the first kid after school or have the school bus drop them off. After work you could head to the grocery store and fill you trunk with an weeks worth of groceries(if you buy less you need more trip and what do you do in terms of child care during said trips).
You then turn around and pick up both kids and go home.
Likewise you could either drop the husband off to work or drop him somewhere close to transit that can take him to work easing schedule pressure(in stead of needing two buses one of which must run earlier than the second, you only need to be concerned about one bus. )
The flawed assumption of congestion pricing is that people are being irrational and not using transit.
I don't think that's assumed.
Quote:
With congestion pricing there are two possibilities. The first probability which is what politicians are counting on is that the traffic is captive and thus will not change with price. In short an simple tax. The second probability is that traffic is flexible in which case people decide not to make the trip and there are profound consequences for this one(less economic activity in the city).
Congestion pricing is proposed in places where most trips into downtown are already taken by transit — car is already a minority mode and the economy isn't dependent on vehicle traffic. The traffic is jammed as is, so discourages it would allow it flow more for those that need to drive.
Quote:
The second child's day care might not be anywhere on an route to work. The day care could be a few blocks to the east and your work way to the north. This means you need to wait on the bus, travel east, drop kid off, cross the street, wait on the bus(again) travel west, wait on the bus(in God's know what kind of weather) travel north to work(which itself could be somewhere with high crime). This is much simpler in an car.
Again, a congestion zone is mainly for downtown bound trips, usually not high crime areas and with frequent transit. Those areas were rather driver unfriendly to begin with. However, a relative's business got stuck in the congestion zone. It's on the periphery enough that driving makes more sense for him and the business does rely on car traffic. So, yes I agree it can have economic losses but really they should have made the zone narrower. But there are too many cars in a small amount of space, so I can understand why they'd want to restrict it. If the business does move, real estate values are high and there are plenty of non-car oriented uses that would be happy to replace ti.
Congestion pricing is proposed in places where most trips into downtown are already taken by transit — car is already a minority mode and the economy isn't dependent on vehicle traffic. The traffic is jammed as is, so discourages it would allow it flow more for those that need to drive.
If the automobile is an minority mode, then it is an simple tax. The people who wanted to use transit and for which transit usage makes sense are already using it. The reason why traffic jams on the way downtown is because people may be going burb to burb, city side to city side, in or through downtown and city to burb.
Quote:
Again, a congestion zone is mainly for downtown bound trips, usually not high crime areas and with frequent transit. Those areas were rather driver unfriendly to begin with. However, a relative's business got stuck in the congestion zone. It's on the periphery enough that driving makes more sense for him and the business does rely on car traffic. So, yes I agree it can have economic losses but really they should have made the zone narrower. But there are too many cars in a small amount of space, so I can understand why they'd want to restrict it. If the business does move, real estate values are high and there are plenty of non-car oriented uses that would be happy to replace ti.
The assumption here is that you don't need to transfer somewhere to get downtown and that transfer location could be unsafe.
If the automobile is an minority mode, then it is an simple tax. The people who wanted to use transit and for which transit usage makes sense are already using it. The reason why traffic jams on the way downtown is because people may be going burb to burb, city side to city side in or through downtown and city to burb.
Well then the congestion tax encourages people to go around rather than through downtown.
I'll point that the congestion charges applies to only 8 square miles in a much larger city, most roads aren't in the congestion price zone.
In mid 2014 the congestion charge was increased to £11.50 from £10. Garrett Emmerson, TfL’s chief operating officer, justified the rate hike when he stated…
"These changes will ensure the congestion charge remains effective in managing congestion in central London."
I go back to what Ken Livingstone, then Major of London, stated back in 2003 when the congestion charge was first implemented…
"I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps 10 years down the line it may be necessary."
Why should anybody trust these politicians that lack such basic foresight?
Well then the congestion tax encourages people to go around rather than through downtown.
Depending on how the freeway and road system is laid out there may be no choice. Want to go from the south side of Chicago to north side you must go near or through downtown. Either through the circle interchange or lake shore drive. Or from west to south/north. and if you need to go from the North side to the west side you actually do need to get off lake shore drive downtown and drive through.
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.
