A-Line Reactivation

[ant8904]

Congestion is a symptom of the equilibrium between driving and other transportation choices; the number of lane-miles in an area limits how many cars can be moving at once. So, in ant's hypothetical scenario of making highways disappear, the remaining roads would reach a new equilibrium state with congestion and fewer cars. Presumably, people would find other ways to make their trips, or cut out those trips entirely. Whether that's good or bad is a much more complicated, case-specific question and can't be answered in general.

Congestion is just an indication that supply is less than or equal to demand. We don't really charge for use of the roads, so the only pricing mechanism is traffic delay, which wastes time. People who place value on their time look for alternatives, if possible. If it takes longer to drive than to walk, bike or take the train, then people will switch. If driving is faster, they will switch back. As CBS pointed out, it all balances.

Again, I will have to write a similar post to the last time you posted on this with perhaps a modification on wording.

The above seem to be founded on the view that roads and other modes of transportation works on in an adversarial fashion. Roads are used to their capacity and excess demand tend flow off to other modes. Since you refused to make any judgement call - handwaving that shutting down all the highway means its effect have to go a case-by-case basis. I have to call bull on that.

You and I can predict the effects. I'm definitely sure with your level of interest in this subject that you have your own prediction and its judgement value. I can tell you mine: If you shutdown all the highways the new equilibrium will be greatly increase congestion. It's not going to be the same level of congestion with everyone else time/frustrated out to other modes or cancellation, its going to be pure and simple congestion that will go well beyond rush hour.

Now, a ring in my head tells me that you might suggest Europe where its highways ends outside the city and yet it still functions. Well I'll say this right now that the infrastructure there works much differently. And it is because of infrastructure as in a more extensive subway network and avenues and not a strategy of having lack of a single major more.

But speaking of infrastructure, the adversarial view is not the right lens to see a network. We should not see highways and roads as the default mode where regulating by capacity is how one see more use in other transportation modes. I said a while ago that it's not a superhighway but a network - well when I said network before we got lost in talking about spreading out lanes - I mean network as in all modes. The Red Line counts as much as a highway as another artery and not some spillover gutter. And the Red Line is not purely dependent on Route 2 and Southeast Expressway being so congested that people would be time/monetarily priced to take the Red Line.

 

[Matthew]

No, you misread what I wrote. It is not "adversarial" for travel demands to balance between modes. They do work together, based upon relative travel time, cost of driving, convenience, and also some other choices.

I wasn't clear about this: The "case-by-case" part refers only to "cutting out trips entirely." In some cases, that might be a negative to the economy, in other cases it might have no effect, and in others it might be positive. I wasn't equivocating over the effect of removing all those highway lanes. It would be a reduction in the number of cars using the roads, but still plenty of congestion.

To reiterate: what changes is the number of vehicles that can use the roads at one point in time; not congestion itself. This is the same as for public transportation: it cannot "cure" congestion anymore than adding a lane to a highway can (ie. not at all). But it can move a lot more people despite congestion.

 

[ant8904]

They do work together, based upon relative travel time, cost of driving, convenience, and also some other choices.

I don't believe I misread it. It is still adversarial because your argument to increase usage of one mode have to be at the expense of another. Sure, you are measuring things that are cooperative as the balance of time, cost, and convenience - but viewing that reducing quality in one mode to "benefit" other modes.

what changes is the number of vehicles that can use the roads at one point in time; not congestion itself.

This statement seems to be stating that there's only one level of congestion. This ignore that you can have congestion in a few area or in lesser amount of hours or you can have total congestion in every road and time.

Supply matters Matthew. Reducing supply isn't a solution. You are taking the wrong lesson from the paradox that increasing supply means increasing congestion (take that the previous statement just noted different levels of congestion).

Plenty of cities out there have better (or worse) levels of congestion. I just heard that Boston is ranked 19th. There are limits to how much demand can rise with supply. And with multiple modes of transportation and also evolving patterns to living (unlike our previous generation, it seems our generation want to be more city inclined, I guess generation matters too), we can meet that demand better than you think.

Am I arguing that we can "cure" congestion, no. I can agree with you on that point. There always be congestion. But you are writing like congestion is all the same. And I take point on that.

 

[whighlander]

Versus other places that lack urban fabric is what you really mean. If you want Orlando, move there. Boston has no need to replicate that model, especially when many of us live here specifically because it doesn't. Your argument amounts to this: suburban car commuters are more important than urban residents. I reject this completely.

Henry -- Boston transportation in general and its roads in partticular have evolved with the evolution of the population, economy and general state of technology

This is not a new process it began in 1630 and is still underway

There is a fine essay on radial and circumferential roadways which predates the present by a couple of generations -- the author Arthur Shurtcliff or as he called himself at the time Arthur A. Shurtleff
THE STREET PLAN OF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT OF BOSTON
Landscape Architecture 1 (January 1911):71-83.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/shurbos.htm

Although the street systems of most American cities were deliberately planned at the start of building operations, they are not, therefore, without serious growing pains at the present day. With few exceptions, a rigid gridiron of streets was adopted for these layouts, because it offered a simple solution of the immediate problems of land sub-division, and required the least amount of surveying and recording. Extensions of such a system of rectangular streets were also so simple as to be almost automatic. Herein lay the crying fault of the gridirons of San Francisco, New York, Providence, and others; they spread like an eruption over hill and valley, regardless of gradient, site, or of strategic lines of communication, oblivious of monotony and blind to topographical opportunity. Nothing has stopped them but the sea or hard times. Baltimore and Washington were better planned. Their methods of growth have, consequently, been less obvious, and are today under a degree of control. Nevertheless, the layout of the heart of Washington--the plan for the very portal of the Capitol--is constantly in flux, after a hundred years of planning by the best men of two continents. We may well pause to consider, with curiosity, how matters fare with Boston and its Metropolitan District, whose street system was never planned, and which is still largely without human guidance.

Over one hundred years before Major L'Enfant and his distinguished patron had plotted a scheme for the City of Washington, the highway system of Boston and its environs was well established. Streets were built piecemeal, as they were needed, along the borders of the harbor, to give access to wharves, and to allow the subdivision of shoreward property into convenient homestead plots. Other roads automatically paralleled those at a further distance from the water, for approach to small farms. Inasmuch as the shore line of the village was racquet-shaped, the marginal roads and their inner counterparts also approximated this form, and constituted a series of circumferential thoroughfares, tied to one another and to the wharves by evenly spaced radials. Military maps recorded this scheme of ways early in the Eighteenth Century, for purposes of possible land and water attack in the seasons of bombardment, but with no eye to a control of the communities' growth by planning

.

 

[Matthew]

I'm just considering your hypothetical scenario here, attempting to illustrate what would happen if the highways disappeared, not arguing for or against it.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. For why I say congestion remains the same regardless of whether you build more or less roads, check out this article by TTI. Cities over that time period which devoted more resources to building highway lane-miles still suffered approximately the same congestion costs as cities which did not build out as much.

 

[whighlander]

I don't believe I misread it. It is still adversarial because your argument to increase usage of one mode have to be at the expense of another. Sure, you are measuring things that are cooperative as the balance of time, cost, and convenience - but viewing that reducing quality in one mode to "benefit" other modes.



This statement seems to be stating that there's only one level of congestion. This ignore that you can have congestion in a few area or in lesser amount of hours or you can have total congestion in every road and time.

Supply matters Matthew. Reducing supply isn't a solution. You are taking the wrong lesson from the paradox that increasing supply means increasing congestion (take that the previous statement just noted different levels of congestion).

Plenty of cities out there have better (or worse) levels of congestion. I just heard that Boston is ranked 19th. There are limits to how much demand can rise with supply. And with multiple modes of transportation and also evolving patterns to living (unlike our previous generation, it seems our generation want to be more city inclined, I guess generation matters too), we can meet that demand better than you think.

Am I arguing that we can "cure" congestion, no. I can agree with you on that point. There always be congestion. But you are writing like congestion is all the same. And I take point on that.

Ant -- it is all about the definition of what constitutes a regional transportation system -- we make these somewhat arbitrary definitions for the purposes of handling the data more easily and attempting to justify our investment decisions

While some people in Providence benefit from the fact that you can take a single seat on the commuter rail trip from Federal Hill in Providence to Fort Point Channel / SPID in Boston -- a lot of people in Providence don't give a hoot about Boston or the SPID. An infinitessimal fraction of the immediate Greater Boston population will ever use the CR in the "reverse-mode" to go to a restaurant in Providence.

So are we as a Boston Region better off having the Providence to South Station CR as an additional travel option along with Amtrak, driving or taking a bus -- most likely -- can we justify the cost of the CR train option in addition to the others -- not clear now and not clear that it will ever be any clearer.

Indeed -- Once you get beyond the obvious advantage of putting the trolleys underground on Tremont St to manage otherwise unmanageable congestion in 1895 -- justiying digging subways is more of a jesture of faith than logic -- due to the absoluie impossibility of conducting an experiment with the isolated alternatives {i.e. what would the development of Greater Boston be like in the absence of the Red Line -- not knowable!)

On the other hand to never have built I-93, I-90, I-93 and there would not be a Greater Boston -- just some quaint towns and small cities with some colleges -- think Hanover, NH -- and to a certain extent the limited development in Worcester due to its lack of good connectivity to the Turnpike

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Indeed -- Once you get beyond the obvious advantage of putting the trolleys underground on Tremont St to manage otherwise unmanageable congestion in 1895 -- justiying digging subways is more of a jesture of faith than logic -- due to the absoluie impossibility of conducting an experiment with the isolated alternatives {i.e. what would the development of Greater Boston be like in the absence of the Red Line -- not knowable!)

Oh, bullshit. The development of Cambridge is INTRICATELY linked to the Red Line, and you yourself have been pimping its benefits to Lexington in many a threadjack.

 

[whighlander]

...The development of Cambridge is INTRICATELY linked to the Red Line

F-Line -- I wasn't trashing the Red Line -- I use it quite frequently and generally quite pleasantly -- I was just making a statement about the lack of a purely logical means of cost -benefit analysis of Red Line or other transportation projects.

But specifically -- to your comment -- what percentage of the development decisions leading to today's Kendall / Cambridge Center were premised on the availabily of the Red Line and what were premised on the proximity to MIT? I think that you will find that outside of the massaging / brownosing of the Cambridge City Council by offering non-auto options for commuting that only lipservice really is devoted to the Red Line when the developers are deciding on things such as square footage and total $ to be invested.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line -- I wasn't trashing the Red Line -- I use it quite frequently and generally quite pleasantly -- I was just making a statement about the lack of a purely logical means of cost -benefit analysis of Red Line or other transportation projects.

But specifically -- to your comment -- what percentage of the development decisions leading to today's Kendall / Cambridge Center were premised on the availabily of the Red Line and what were premised on the proximity to MIT? I think that you will find that outside of the massaging / brownosing of the Cambridge City Council by offering non-auto options for commuting that only lipservice really is devoted to the Red Line when the developers are deciding on things such as square footage and total $ to be invested.

Transit access means a big fuckin' deal for ease-of-access to MIT talent. Plot the companies doing the most leeching off their brainpower in the urban core and you will usually find transit within < 2 transfers if not right freakin' on the Red Line. Where rents are at their highest. If that weren't a significant factor these places would be setting up shop in an as-crow-flies radius, filling in every site where they can max value-for-rent on a spread. That's not where the MIT brainpower necessarily goes. We do not see cheap redevelopable land in Everett or Readville incubating tech companies despite similar crow-flies distance. It concentrates far hotter along the most direct transit access points, because those are the corridors the MIT brainpower was traveling on before they got hired away. Go where the talent is. That tilts much heavier right now to the Red Line than it does some straight-line distance that's 18 bus transfers or a car or some personal jetpack trip away.

We need the Urban Cartography folks to do up a heat map juxtaposing this. It'd be revealing.

 

[ant8904]

I'm just considering your hypothetical scenario here, attempting to illustrate what would happen if the highways disappeared, not arguing for or against it.

Your analysis to my hypothetical scenario is lacking. For I have to say if the highways into Boston disappear. The consequence is dramatic increase in congestion in all modes - the T would the stuffed as well at roads like route 28. My point is demand is only so flexible. The absolute top end of demand is the number of all commuters, but the reasonable bottom end is the number of all commuting workers.

I will give you that the study is showing congestion increases with supply, but I can argue the room to decrease demand is much lower than the room to increase.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. For why I say congestion remains the same regardless of whether you build more or less roads, check out this article by TTI. Cities over that time period which devoted more resources to building highway lane-miles still suffered approximately the same congestion costs as cities which did not build out as much.

The thing you can take from that study is a strategy of building pure number of roads to overtake demand is very inefficient (though I have to note that the cities that building the most road also having the large population growth and many of the cities are the types that you have to drive even to go to a convenience store - their counterargument that it was a study of 15 years with 70 US cities doesn't take not that 60 of the US cities are the same). The study also didn't address the observation that some cities have more or less congestion than others. This would indicate that one of the thing to not take out is congestion is always the same as one could conclude that it seem to remain the same as lanes were increased. It did not try to see if congestion can be reduced with a combination strategy. And I view a combination does make effects on levels of congestion.

 

[Matthew]

Your analysis to my hypothetical scenario is lacking. For I have to say if the highways into Boston disappear. The consequence is dramatic increase in congestion in all modes - the T would the stuffed as well at roads like route 28. My point is demand is only so flexible. The absolute top end of demand is the number of all commuters, but the reasonable bottom end is the number of all commuting workers.

The resulting congestion would likely cause people to choose to take fewer trips, thus removing cars from the road and passengers from the T. That's why I say congestion is a symptom of equilibrium: it self-regulates. The variable is the number of people or vehicles attempting to make a trip at a same time.

Maybe we can straighten out our understanding by asking: How do you measure congestion? One way is to look at the average delay to overall trips in a region. If average delay starts rising, then people find that certain trips are not worthwhile. If average delay falls, then people may start making additional trips. But the overall effect is to converge on some average delay. And this can change throughout the day, since travel demand has peaks and troughs. Some trips are valued more than others. Some trips can be moved in time. But that doesn't change the fundamentals here.

It did not try to see if congestion can be reduced with a combination strategy. And I view a combination does make effects on levels of congestion.

Except that plenty of other research has found that public transportation does not reduce congestion. The only proven method is variable road pricing. Congestion is fundamentally a tragedy-of-the-commons style problem. The way to solve those problems is by introducing a market. Either you pay with money or you pay with time.

 

[ant8904]

The resulting congestion would likely cause people to choose to take fewer trips, thus removing cars from the road and passengers from the T. That's why I say congestion is a symptom of equilibrium: it self-regulates. The variable is the number of people or vehicles attempting to make a trip at a same time.

Maybe we can straighten out our understanding by asking: How do you measure congestion? One way is to look at the average delay to overall trips in a region. If average delay starts rising, then people find that certain trips are not worthwhile. If average delay falls, then people may start making additional trips. But the overall effect is to converge on some average delay. And this can change throughout the day, since travel demand has peaks and troughs. Some trips are valued more than others. Some trips can be moved in time. But that doesn't change the fundamentals here.

Except that plenty of other research has found that public transportation does not reduce congestion. The only proven method is variable road pricing.

I'll tell you what you're missing with the measurements. That's there are different levels of congestion. As in Boston is 19th, Los Angeles is 1st (you telling me that LA is not first because they only have 1/5 of our ridership despite being like 3 times the size of metro Boston?), and Minneapolis is 25th. This means road network, public transportation, area where people live versus areas commonly travel to does matter. If not, why doesn't every city just raise their congestion equally then spill over to other options? That is taking a lens that public transportation as merely a spill over congestion system.

That's is what I'm trying to point out here. You seem to be arguing all congestion is the same. Congestion with non-exist public transit and a road network equivalent to cowpaths and congestion with a modern subway network and road network are both self-regulating. People will react to the situation and weight the pros-and-cons. But surely you can tell one system is serving people at a much different rate than the other. Surely a less efficient system will bring cost to what people can do. Self-regulation by raising the cost rather

Congestion is fundamentally a tragedy-of-the-commons style problem. The way to solve those problems is by introducing a market. Either you pay with money or you pay with time.

Your thesis is dependent on the thinking that driving is the default mode to everything.

I suspect many drive not because they want to but the alternative is far too costly. Making the solution where you solve that by making driving even more costly than the alternative is a non-starter.

Thus, we don't need to price out people to make people take other modes. We just need to make other mode the better choice and a set up people where they don't to drive. The article you link mentioned that congestion pricing drove people to take trains by 18%. This shows uneven distribution. Is there no way we can attract people to take trains up 18%?

There's also a second issue I think that needs to be brought up in this idea you are pushing: fairness. Congestion pricing means a system that favors those who can best afford the tolls rather than -as your article worded- "hidden cost" where time and initiative is equal between everyone. All you achieve is creating a system where the richest get to enjoy more easy driving because the rabble are priced out. When the problem is it is so hard to drive to a place with so many people in the way - this is a solution where you reduce the number of people in the way... by pricing out the poorest.

 

[Matthew]

The poorest don't own cars, and therefore, don't benefit from the subsidies being poured into roadways and parking lots. They do pay taxes for those things though. How is that fair? Road pricing is not any different from charging for any other product. You don't hear rhetoric like that when it comes to purchasing milk from the store. Why is it so important to give away road space for free when we don't give away so much else?

You don't need to argue with me that we need to have better access to other modes. I'm totally in agreement. Right now the current situation is that even the consideration of reducing some of the implicit subsidy given to roadways and automobile usage is attacked viciously.

The difference between congestion on "cowpaths" and congestion on modern highways is capacity. Both can be equally congested, but the highway does move more people nonetheless.

Can you send a link to that ranking btw, I'm curious to see what they are measuring precisely.

 

[Shepard]

I would think the mos useful congestion charges would be demand based rather than fixed fee, which could then lead to greater promotion of off-rush-hour office hours etc that could benefit all socioeconomic classes equally.

 

[Matthew]

Yes, that's what I meant by variable.

 

[ant8904]

The poorest don't own cars, and therefore, don't benefit from the subsidies being poured into roadways and parking lots. They do pay taxes for those things though. How is that fair? Road pricing is not any different from charging for any other product. You don't hear rhetoric like that when it comes to purchasing milk from the store. Why is it so important to give away road space for free when we don't give away so much else?

First, even the poorest (for Americans) have cars. They have less cars per capita and drive less, but they do have and will be affected.

But even if we agree this doesn't affect the poorest, it does affect the lowest income car drivers the most. And just because the person drive a car doesn't mean he's wealthy enough to afford anything. When you build a system where you basically allow the wealthiest to reserve the highway to have an easy ride for them while congesting pricing price out the other held of bell curve of income of drivers, I find this to be a fairness issue.

Then there also that I believe that many people drive because they have to not want to. They drive because the company is 9-5 and the place is on the other side of Greater Boston or built along a highway. So, for these people, they are cannot be manipulated, they are forced to just pay. And it is variable, then one day pay nearly nothing and another through their nose.

While, I do want to mention that I have my own views of utilities as in that things we have to use to live should not be subject to market pricing (Because the market system have incentives that not goes to providing basic service but how to profit which many times mean not giving service - the Enron example). With typical examples like electricity and water but not milk, but I also view that for transportation (else why not set up market price for mass transit as well - that mean full cost of operation?). I recognize this is probably not an argument that would fly well in this discussion.

So, let me argue this. Congestion pricing is for manipulation of drivers, not for payment for roads and cost to build and maintain. You can say the money can be put to cover road maintenance, but a variable price means it's not a cover for usage but a commodity. For the strategy to manipulate not cover for its existence.

And again, you as you said before and to paraphrase, it is better to move more people even with congestion. Better to move 20,000 than 10,000. Well, congestion pricing is a system that fixes congestion by allowing only 15,000 to drive. A system to force out 5,000 for the convenience of 15,000. You can say they can drive earlier or later or take other transportation. But again, I don't think many of the drivers in are just driving because they just want to drive. But they have to drive and have to drive at a certain time.

Congestion pricing is a solution for the wrong aspect of the problem in congestion.

You don't need to argue with me that we need to have better access to other modes. I'm totally in agreement. Right now the current situation is that even the consideration of reducing some of the implicit subsidy given to roadways and automobile usage is attacked viciously.

Good, we are in agreement to access other modes. I have nothing to say about removing implicit subsidy. But I do want to see more funding to other transit. But removing roadways sounds like I need a more case-by-case example.

The difference between congestion on "cowpaths" and congestion on modern highways is capacity. Both can be equally congested, but the highway does move more people nonetheless.

And that what I been trying to argue here. Your arguments seems to be highly based on reducing capacity with reasoning that congestion will remain the say anyways as it will adjust by itself. But just because congestion level is the same, it doesn't mean all congestion is the same. Equally congested cowpaths and highways are can be the same level of congestion, but different types of issues entirely.

The focus should be about moving more people, but that includes better roads as well as other modes. Reducing capacity might reduce congestion, but not necessarily increase efficiency in moving pure number of people.

Can you send a link to that ranking btw, I'm curious to see what they are measuring precisely.

Sure, just came out yesterday.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-11/business/32616861_1_traffic-congestion-tomtom-evening-rush

 

[Matthew]

That is pure FUD and could be used to argue against any kind of market for any kind of good or service. There are times when markets don't work, but for the most part it is the fairest way of distribution.

You need to justify to me why roads and parking should be given away for free when we don't do that for so much else. And remember, the poorest are still paying taxes for the maintenance of those roads. If road pricing takes effect, it should displace those taxes, meaning lesser overall burden for lower income folks.

The point of demand-based road pricing is to offer a trade-off between money and time. That money can be used for transportation funding as well, in lieu of other taxes. Even the poor value their time, and the rich can choose to be flexible in their trips too. And providing alternative forms of transportation will be part of it too. But no amount of screaming about class warfare can get around the fact that you will pay: either with money, or with time.

The focus should be about moving more people, but that includes better roads as well as other modes. Reducing capacity might reduce congestion, but not necessarily increase efficiency in moving pure number of people.

No, I haven't been arguing that reducing capacity would necessarily reduce congestion. I've been trying to bridge a semantic gap here -- the meaning of the word 'congestion'. I used your hypothetical scenario of highway disappearance to illustrate a point, not make a policy suggestion. I think the end of that article put it well:

In some respects, congestion is a good problem to have, according to Tinlin. “Let’s face it,” he said. “The reason you can drive right through some cities is because there’s no reason to be there.”

If there's demand, there will be contention for resources that leads to congestion. The thresholds, for each city, at which people make decisions about when and if to take trips does change depending on alternatives available, and it also depends on personal taste. For example, someone in Boston might choose to bicycle if driving is delayed by 20%. Another person would wait until 30%. But someone in LA might not even have that option.

 

[ant8904]

That is pure FUD and could be used to argue against any kind of market for any kind of good or service. There are times when markets don't work, but for the most part it is the fairest way of distribution.

It is not FUD to point out that this is a strategy that will benefit the richest with easy driving and the other classes far less as they weight between paying cash or time.

You need to justify to me why roads and parking should be given away for free when we don't do that for so much else. And remember, the poorest are still paying taxes for the maintenance of those roads. If road pricing takes effect, it should displace those taxes, meaning lesser overall burden for lower income folks.

Other utilities are approaching that (for this country). The poorest still have to use it on some level to get around and my understanding is they would pay it mostly through the sales tax (as almost half don't pay any through income based on the latest news). I would suspect the amount they pay is low.

Also, I should point out that roadways are not being given out for free. The primary tax of the gas tax shows we are paying. As should increasing it if needed. The issue is we aren't giving paltry funding towards other forms of transit. Again, remember I made a short blurb about LA, the solution for them is having a decent transit system (and perhaps people who want to take them, my gut says LA people have a culture that also make them refuse to take transit too). Is the problem in LA is the lack of congestion pricing or the fact everyone there uses a car for everything?

But again, I should point that not everything is about the poorest either. The one that will be priced out is the poorest car drivers. For many drivers, the times they drive is mandatory. As in the only way to get to location and likely the only time they can drive. This is a convenience system, not a traffic management system.

Thus compacting locations to transit areas and encourage that we live where we work rather than suburbia is a better strategy.

The point of demand-based road pricing is to offer a trade-off between money and time. That money can be used for transportation funding as well, in lieu of other taxes. Even the poor value their time, and the rich can choose to be flexible in their trips too. And providing alternative forms of transportation will be part of it too. But no amount of screaming about class warfare can get around the fact that you will pay: either with money, or with time.

Or we can just reconfigure ourselves so there is less necessary need to use a car and have a decent alternative transportation system.

No, I haven't been arguing that reducing capacity would necessarily reduce congestion. I've been trying to bridge a semantic gap here -- the meaning of the word 'congestion'. I used your hypothetical scenario of highway disappearance to illustrate a point, not make a policy suggestion. I think the end of that article put it well:

If there's demand, there will be contention for resources that leads to congestion. The thresholds, for each city, at which people make decisions about when and if to take trips does change depending on alternatives available, and it also depends on personal taste. For example, someone in Boston might choose to bicycle if driving is delayed by 20%. Another person would wait until 30%. But someone in LA might not even have that option.

Then what type of policy do you want to advocate then? For the city of Boston. Do you want removal of all highways from Boston and shut down the tunnel (BTW, someone pointed out before that were you debatable numbers of the Big Dig costs for years - you haven't address that) as you previously advocated that no highways should be in city limits? What do you think of the choke points of 95-93? My understanding your previous wording of equilibrium seem to argue that there's isn't much point to fix it. Do you want congestion pricing to be added to Boston and which/all roads?

 

[Matthew]

It is not FUD to point out that this is a strategy that will benefit the richest with easy driving and the other classes far less as they weight between paying cash or time.

We already do that. Just subsidizing roads benefits the rich the most -- the folks who can most afford to drive and park everywhere.

Other utilities are approaching that (for this country). The poorest still have to use it on some level to get around and my understanding is they would pay it mostly through the sales tax (as almost half don't pay any through income based on the latest news). I would suspect the amount they pay is low.

Also, I should point out that roadways are not being given out for free. The primary tax of the gas tax shows we are paying. As should increasing it if needed. The issue is we aren't giving paltry funding towards other forms of transit. Again, remember I made a short blurb about LA, the solution for them is having a decent transit system (and perhaps people who want to take them, my gut says LA people have a culture that also make them refuse to take transit too). Is the problem in LA is the lack of congestion pricing or the fact everyone there uses a car for everything?

But again, I should point that not everything is about the poorest either. The one that will be priced out is the poorest car drivers. For many drivers, the times they drive is mandatory. As in the only way to get to location and likely the only time they can drive. This is a convenience system, not a traffic management system.

Because we give away roads for free, they automatically become the number one choice for travel. This influences land use and planning - minimum parking requirements and wider roads - thus we end up with the situation where people are forced to buy a car, even if they can't really afford it. The reduction in options stems from the fact that we don't charge for usage of roads, and instead force everyone to subsidize them.

The gas tax isn't sufficient as you know, and anyway, it's a little silly. The revenue from the gas tax is dedicated to producing more and more roads. That doesn't make any sense. We don't do that for any other kind of consumption tax. For example, the sales tax on books doesn't go towards producing more books. Actually, a portion ends up in roads. Since the gas tax isn't sufficient to pay for our roads, they are significantly funded by local taxes on property, state taxes on income, and sales tax.

Separate issue, but: Lower income folks do pay plenty of tax on their income. The only tax that is progressive is the Federal income tax. But that is far from the only tax. The poor pay Federal payroll taxes, which apply to the first ~$100k of income only. The poor pay State income taxes, for the most part, which are much more regressive than Federal. They also pay sales tax and property tax (indirectly if they don't own).

Demand-based road pricing will be a boon for drivers of all incomes. Especially for people who need driving time reliability, or those who like to have direct control over their costs. It can be used to lower taxes, promote alternative forms of transportation, and reduce congestion. It's a win-win-win. But people are afraid of change, and many prefer hidden costs they don't have to think about to explicit costs they need to weigh, even if it will save them money. And also tolling has sucked in the past, but it can be done seamlessly now. The funny part of this discussion is that drivers will actually see way more benefit from road pricing than I will, most likely.

Then what type of policy do you want to advocate then? For the city of Boston. Do you want removal of all highways from Boston and shut down the tunnel (BTW, someone pointed out before that were you debatable numbers of the Big Dig costs for years - you haven't address that) as you previously advocated that no highways should be in city limits? What do you think of the choke points of 95-93? My understanding your previous wording of equilibrium seem to argue that there's isn't much point to fix it. Do you want congestion pricing to be added to Boston and which/all roads?

What's done is done. But what can we improve? I argue that we don't want to make changes which raise the volume of cars commuting into the city because that necessitates more parking lots and wider roads, and both of those destroy the city. To start with, tolls. It doesn't make any sense that you can enter the tunnels in some ways without paying a toll. They cost a lot - pay for them! Demand-based road pricing is the only way to control congestion, but even if you don't do that, tolls are only fair.

I'm not sure which Big Dig numbers you are referring to there.

 

[whighlander]

.. That's not where the MIT brainpower necessarily goes. We do not see cheap redevelopable land in Everett or Readville incubating tech companies despite similar crow-flies distance. It concentrates far hotter along the most direct transit access points, because those are the corridors the MIT brainpower was traveling on before they got hired away. Go where the talent is. That tilts much heavier right now to the Red Line than it does some straight-line distance that's 18 bus transfers or a car or some personal jetpack trip away.

We need the Urban Cartography folks to do up a heat map juxtaposing this. It'd be revealing.

F-Line -- so-far to really benefit from the imeadiacy of access to MIT -- its been all about walking distance -- that's why the major developments are a 5 to 10 minute walk from Building 10. The value of MIT proximity to the gnerd or the tech manager is that you can take lunch off to catch a seminar, or have a brief meet with a Prof in his/her office or a brewski in Kendall. Companies have for a while also taken advantage of interns or tem-time employees, who are full-time students, working on projects at the company's location. Having the location within walking distance is a major boon as most undergraduate students don't have cars. None of that actually benefits from having any kind of transportation equipment except for shoes.

As an experiment or case study -- it will be particulalrly interesting to see how HP's Big Data Hq which is being set-up at Alewife works out. Simultaneously, with HP's announcemnt -- MIT announced its own Big Data initiative (mostly with Intel) -- so there will be lots of seminars on campus. The principal of the HP Big Data, a suburbanite (ex-DEC) picked Alewife specifically to allow choice of lifestyle for both: suburban-types like himself to have relative easy access via Rt-2; and also for mostly younger, non-family gnerd commuters to bike or take the T from Cambridge/Boston. He made no reference to taking the T to Kendall for business or science -- I presume that HP will have a van that they will use for those kinds of trips.