
Why the focus should be mass transit instead of tolls to fix traffic congestion - tristanj
http://economicjustice.ca/2015/11/23/why-the-focus-should-be-mass-transit-instead-of-tolls-to-relieve-traffic-congestion-1/
======
logingone
Maybe I'm alone on this, but is transport only an economic matter? I am not a
package, a cardboard box. I have senses and a brain which processes to some
degree, and as a result I need to be transported with more consideration than
a parcel. I find the London underground to have crossed the threshold from
acceptable human transport. Infinite shoe-horning is not a solution. I'm aware
of the various problems that need to be considered, but I think my psyche
should not be excluded from consideration.

~~~
Numberwang
I moved to London two years ago from Sweden. The underground has really helped
me get over my claustrophobia (by daily exposure).

------
erispoe
This article conflates two very different things: creating new tolls on
existing infrastructure, and creating new toll-funded infrastructures. The
first one changes the incentives of existing users, the other one is creating
induced demand for wealthy commuters. Wealthy or not, induced demand is still
induced demand, and will create new congestion on the existing network.

The main fallacy, however, is the goal of reducing congestion. If we want to
move trips from cars to more sustainable means, congestion is a way of
reducing the competitive speed of individual vehicles, therefore shifting the
incentives towards public transit.

edit: typos

~~~
Natsu
Congestion, among its other faults, leaves cars idling on the roads wasting
gas. It also harms some of the more common mass transit systems. For example,
nobody is going to see a bus as the faster option when they're both traveling
the same congested streets as the cars do.

That said, it does work sometimes. For example, if you're going to a baseball
game, it's better to use the light rail than to go anywhere near the downtown
traffic in Phoenix.

~~~
grub5000
If you have effective bus lanes (such as in Edinburgh), the busses offer a
visibly faster alternative to driving. Even at peak time.

~~~
beobab
I humbly suggest "especially at peak times".

~~~
arethuza
Be thankful that Edinburgh's roads weren't "improved" in the 1960s:

[http://www.gcat.org.uk/blog/?tag=edinburgh-
motorways](http://www.gcat.org.uk/blog/?tag=edinburgh-motorways)

~~~
gsnedders
Whereas Glasgow still suffers from its motorway plan having been left half
done, leaving the city with a single motorway crossing of the river (with only
two lanes, down from five as you start to approach the city!).

------
pjc50
Self-driving cars are not a silver bullet for congestion, because they don't
reduce the physical space required by cars. For example, the Sao Paulo 180km
traffic jam:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19660765](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19660765)

~~~
exo762
Self-driving cars are the necessary but not sufficient condition to solve
traffic problems. Start with that and remove 1-person-1-car model [0], add
ride-sharing software, ban human drivers [1] and done, no more traffic
problems.

As for your example - this jam is a direct result of very high latency of
human reaction. It causes stop-and-go in jams [2].

[0] Or it will rot and occupy parking space for 97% of time.

[1] This will likely to average speed and reduce time spent waiting for
lights.

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M)

~~~
m_eiman
_Self-driving cars are the necessary but not sufficient condition to solve
traffic problems. Start with that and remove 1-person-1-car model [0]_

There's no need to have self-driving cars to stop 1p1c. We've already got mass
transit… Switch to semi-fullly seated buses and you've reduced the number of
vehicles by a factor of 40.

Besides, since everyone starts work at the same time self-driving cars will
have minimal effect on the number of cars on the roads at rush hour as long as
there's only one occupant per car.

Much cheaper solutions than developing and constructing an entire new vehicle
fleet would be to force multiple occupants per vehicle, and to have people
start work over a wider time span.

~~~
iofj
Example of the problem with mass transit :
[http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/masstransit.htm](http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/masstransit.htm)

1) Money: generally speaking, depending on the number of passengers mass
transit is a little cheaper (1 person), about the same (2 pers) or much more
expensive (a family of 4-5) than public transport.

If you take into account that home -> work -> shopping -> home with public
transport turns into home -> city center -> other city center -> work -> city
center -> shopping -> city center -> other city center -> home ... The point
is that there are many kinds of trips where the routes taken by public
transport cause it to be more expensive than a car.

In the cities where I've worked, mass transit (2x bus + train) was only 20-30%
cheaper than a car and only if you lived out in the suburbs and worked in the
city. The other way around (living in city, working a bit out of the city),
mass transit was more expensive than the car. Living in city, working in city,
a fold-up bike was far more convenient.

2) Time: mass transit doesn't go where I live, and doesn't leave/arrive when I
need to leave/arrive. Furthermore, it's regularly non-operative when I need
it. This limits what I can do (I stayed late, we ordered in pizza, then hang
out with a friend ... oops it's 22h30 ... no more buses to my place until 6
am. Yes it only happened to me maybe 5 times over a decade but fuck that shit)

3) Baggage limits: when using mass transit I can carry 25 kilograms. If I
don't care about comfort of myself and other passengers, maybe 40-50 is
possible. I don't imagine I will be able to do that anymore when I turn 60. If
I have my kids with me, 20 kg is pushing it, and if I'm either slightly ill or
... I can barely take anything at all.

When I go shopping, I buy for the week at least (by far the least bothersome
way to do shopping imho, a lot faster, and also 30% or so cheaper) I come home
with 30-40 kilograms usually. Can't use public transport for that.

This is ignoring that a lot of things can't be reasonably/safely transported
using public transport, like DIY building supplies (ladder, long bars, 2 by
4s, ...). This includes anything heavy or above a certain very restrictive
size limit.

4) Comfort. I don't even get why they bother with 1st class on trains. Let's
not pretend that even 1st class has 1/10th the comfort of a car. Commuter
trains are torture.

Mass transit is usable as a commute solution. It cannot reasonably replace a
car. We need to fix transport and mass transport as it currently exists is not
the answer.

~~~
kspaans
> The other way around (living in city, working a bit out of the city), mass
> transit was more expensive than the car.

Do you mean the monthly cost of transit pass/fares was more than monthly cost
of parking + gas + insurance + car payments + maintenance?

~~~
emj
Our monthly numbers are

Transit passes for a family of four: 250-450 USD

or one very cheap car used for commute: 300-600 USD \+ public transport

or bicycles + public tranport: 150-300 USD a cargo bike being the most
expensive part of that.

I commute 2*50 min daily on bicycle since 2013.

~~~
emj
To be fair it's actually 2*30 min nowdays, I just say 50 min because that's
what how long the commute was with the car and also how long it took me to
bike when I started.

------
alkonaut
"Instead of tolls"? Why not both? Tolls should pay for mass transit. It's a
win win. Want to take your car? Good, you are then paying tolls that
subsidizes someone else taking the bus. I thought almost all cities that have
congestion fees use them to pay for more public transit?

~~~
mabbo
Except that governments tend to _sell_ the toll infrastructure, as they did
with the 407 ETR. In that particular case, it was to balance the budget for
that one year, so that way the Conservatives could claim their tax breaks
didn't cause a deficit.

------
kspaans
Here is part 2: [http://economicjustice.ca/2015/11/24/why-focus-should-be-
on-...](http://economicjustice.ca/2015/11/24/why-focus-should-be-on-mass-
transit-instead-of-tolls-to-relieve-traffic-congestion-2/)

But it's just a few maps of Montreal and Toronto, so I wonder if it's a
placeholder...

------
ilaksh
[http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage](http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage)

------
tomohawk
I know several people who have attempted to live in cities nearby. In the end,
they all moved to the burbs when (a) they realized they needed good schools
for their kids or (b) they were mugged.

Mass transit requires density. Density of housing and density of employment.

Density requires a level of competence in governance that many US cities
appear to lack.

~~~
fche
"Density requires a level of competence in governance ..."

And density requires a populace willing to suffer the indignities of such
density too ... unless you were proposing that government should impose it
regardless ... or that government can wave away those indignities.

~~~
tomohawk
Not proposing any such imposition.

Just noting that if city governments were more competent, mass transit would
not be an issue as cities would be a more desirable place to live and work as
compared to the burbs.

Whenever I see a new mass transit proposal put out by a nearby city, it seems
that the major underlying reason is to have a public works project to steer
money to vested interests rather than to provide useful transit.

------
spoiledtechie
This article is all well and good, but the BIG problem are traffic lights.
Traffic lights are undoubtedly the problem.

What can replace lights? Roundabouts. Plain and simple OR a startup that can
compete with the current traffic light system.

~~~
stephengillie
Having seen some roundabout implementations, I'm no longer convinced. Traffic
circles require a large flat space, and can't easily replace stop lights on
steep hills or narrow crevasses.

A roundabout replaced a set of traffic lights at a 3-way intersection in a
crevasse next to SR-18 in Auburn, WA. It's a tight fit and difficult to
navigate, and trucks regularly jump the curb.

After driving it, I really wish they could change it back.

~~~
Animats
Roundabouts may work very well for self-driving cars with some short-range
communications capability. Merges can be negotiated, both at roundabouts and
on-ramps.

~~~
stephengillie
Roundabouts allow only simple traffic interactions, that's kinda the point.
Nothing complicated like a left turn can happen. Why would special
communication be needed?

------
rebootthesystem
I can't speak for Canada. In a place like Los Angeles both mass transit and
carpool/toll lanes are useless.

Due to a contract I've been driving a pleasure-filled 100 miles per day on the
lovely 405 freeway for a number of weeks. I'm not in a hurry, so I chill and
kind of watch traffic like I'm not there.

What I see ever day is, well, ridiculous.

The carpool lane is a complete waste. It effectively removes 20% to 25% of the
road's capacity without any real benefits at all. Why?

    
    
        - Cars with multiple passengers were going to have 
          multiple passengers, carpool lane or not
        - Those cars were not removed from the road thanks to the 
          carpool lane:  No benefit
        - Business trucks with multiple passengers? Same issue:  
          They were going to have multiple passengers anyway
        - Buses:  They go slow and plug-up the carpool lane
          and actually create traffic jams.  Today I watched an 
          empty bus with probably 50 cars behind it going well
          below the speed limit.  Crazy.
        - Cargo trucks (like 24 footers).  Again, same problems:
          They were going to have multiple passengers anyway,
          they are going slow and cause congestion.
        - Tons of cars with a single person break the rules and
          use the carpool lane because nothing is enforced, 
          particularly at night
    
    

What's needed is a shift in mission, focus and concentration by two agencies:
Caltrans and CHP. Maybe the DMV too, in that they'd have to push and
experiment with new rules of the road.

Their mission should be to make the roadways as efficient as possible.

Don't pull over the guy doing 80 in the fast lane who is getting the hell out
of the way. Pull over the dude doing 50 in the middle of the freeway and the
nutcase one lane over doing 49.999 miles per hour who form a virtual "cork" in
the road and create a pile-up behind them.

And all those people who somehow can't press on the accelerator going uphill?
We must do something about them. It's unbelievable.

How about the guy doing 63.9 mph on the left lane who absolutely refuses to
move over, creates a pile-up and has an asshole behind him driving one foot
from his bumper?

Ah, and one of my favorites: Let's get on the freeway at 40 miles per hour
because we are afraid of the accelerator or we just don't give a shit! Cars
pile up, swerve around and a huge potential for a nasty accident is created
when these fine folk enter our freeways.

Yes, we do have too many cars on the road, but they are also being driven in
really stupid and inefficient ways, our agencies do exactly zero to improve
the situation and, on top of that, lanes are taken away and road capacity is
reduced for this imaginary idea of carpooling.

I really don't think our highways are being used anywhere near peak
efficiency. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the exact opposite were true.

~~~
Joeri
The people driving at a constant speed are not the problem. They keep traffic
flowing smoothly, even if it is slightly below the speed limit. The ones who
create the problem are those changing lanes to gain 5 mph and get to their
destination one minute sooner. They cause people in the lane they move into to
have to pile on the brakes, causing slowdowns which can form a standing wave
and turn into traffic jams. If people would just pick a lane and a speed and
stick to it the overall throughput of the road would be much improved.

~~~
danenania
This is very true. If you want to see how much difference this makes
firsthand, go to Germany and drive on the autobahn. No one hangs out in the
passing lane. No one tailgates. No one cuts anyone else off. Everyone goes the
speed they're comfortable with.

I felt so much safer and more relaxed driving 110 mph there than I do going 65
on an American highway.

~~~
pakled_engineer
Tailgating on the autobahn is also a potential 375Euro fine and 3 month
license suspension if you get caught.

~~~
saiya-jin
for tailgaters I have a quick solution - hit the brakes gently. not to slow
down enough to cause any incident, just to scare the idiot behind me that
their precious little car will get smashed because of their stupidity. if
enough people did this, I believe most would stop this d*ck-measurement
activities, at least on the roads.

~~~
maccard
No thanks, I'm not getting rear ended at 70mph because I'm getting tail gated.

------
forrestthewoods
Public transportation sucks and is terrible. Yes even in big European cities.
It's asking for a faster horse. Any planning not built around self driving
cars is dumb and behind the curve.

~~~
culturestate
This opinion is (I believe) largely a function of one's worldview: if you grew
up and live in a place designed for cars, you will probably find public
transit systems inefficient. Why shouldn't I be able to get in a thing at my
door and out of a thing at my destination door, without all this walking and
standing nonsense?

If you grew up in e.g. Hong Kong, though, you'd likely see public transit as
an arterial system designed to get you from one walkable neighborhood to
another. I want to be able to walk around my neighborhood without dodging
cars, even pedestrian-aware self-driving ones.

The failure of public transit in many contexts is really in foundational civil
planning, not the nature of transit itself.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Even if you ignore the extra walking required, and even if public transit
actually gets you close enough to your destination, public transit at least
doubles the travel time required. Potentially more if your drive doesn't need
to deal with traffic, which it often doesn't.

Random example: in the Portland area, a city known for both public transit and
pedestrian/bike friendliness, I looked up routes from my current workplace to
the university building I took most of my classes in, via either a car or
public transit. Despite having a train line that handles most of the distance,
that trip would take at least 90-100 minutes, depending on time of day. That
assumes you start your trip at a time that doesn't require waiting for the
first pickup. The same trip by car would take 25-40 minutes, depending on
traffic. And with a reasonably fuel-efficient vehicle, the trip would cost
less in gas than the cost of the transit fare. On top of all that, you can
leave when you want to leave, not worry about which bus or train you need to
catch, and not worry about getting stranded when the buses and trains shut
down for the night.

This isn't an issue of worldview; by any almost objective measure, a car beats
public transit, here in one of the most transit-friendly cities in the
country.

(In the interests of a fair comparison: public transit does work better if you
don't have the option of using a car, such as if you can't afford one, or if
you have some legal reason you can't drive.)

Adding more public transit vehicles or routes wouldn't solve this problem,
because the current set of vehicles aren't actually at capacity; by measures
of _throughput_ , they carry all the passengers that want to ride. However, by
measures of _latency_ and similar metric, public transit utterly fails.

Perhaps if you somehow convinced the entire population to use public transit,
then you could put many times the number of public transit vehicles on the
road without wastefulness, and partially solve the latency problem. But you'd
have a lot more luck convincing people to use a fleet of self-driving electric
cars instead.

I would welcome a similar latency-based comparison in a more transit-friendly
area, as long as the comparison shows transit infrastructure getting better to
compare well with cars, rather than driving infrastructure getting worse while
transit stays the same.

~~~
Piskvorrr
Aha, perhaps _that_ is the issue: if Portland, billed as mass-transit
friendly, sucks this much w/r/t MT, it's understandable that people would try
it and say "well if _this_ is the best mass transit can do, then no thanks."

Edit: Went to check the map - and yes, it does look very...rudimentary.
[http://trimet.org/maps/img/trimetsystem.png](http://trimet.org/maps/img/trimetsystem.png)

~~~
icebraining
Yeah, with that network, no wonder it's slow.

For comparison, here's Budapest: [http://www.hungarybudapestguide.com/wp-
content/uploads/detai...](http://www.hungarybudapestguide.com/wp-
content/uploads/detailedbudapestmap.jpg)

~~~
Piskvorrr
Good point. Prague: (caution, big PNG)
[http://www.ropid.cz/data/Galleries/59/67/d1190_3_A0_PID_2015...](http://www.ropid.cz/data/Galleries/59/67/d1190_3_A0_PID_2015-11.png)

------
transfire
Fuck tolls ([http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/personal-
flying-v...](http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/personal-flying-
vehicles-close-to-reality/2843387.html))

