The Antiplanner

There are currently 30 responses to “DC Leaders Want to Make Driving More Difficult”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

1. 1 On September 19th, 2008, the highwayman said:

   Well what we have today isn’t any where being close to a market based transport policy.

   The major thing is the need for a general form of tolling for driving, even a nominal $1 per mile for every type of road.

   Also suburbs in them selves are not bad, though there are lots of bad suburbs.

   posted on September 19th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

2. 2 On September 19th, 2008, Dan said:

   If you want to promote pedestrian safety, make pedestrians safer, don’t make driving more difficult. That’s like saying, “people move to the suburbs because suburban schools are better, so let’s ruin suburban schools to encourage people to move back to the city.”

   Of course, that’s the way a lot of urban planners think.

   I call BS.

   The issue with ped safety is the design of roadways up until ~ 2000-ish didn’t include peds. So slowing speeds is necessary for safety. That’s too ding-dang bad if folks don’t like the reversing of autocentricity. See, the people who live in DC walk frequently, and the commuters into DC are 2/5 in SOVs. So the folks who actually live there want a little more safety. I’m sure even the exurban patriot-American readers here want more safety in their neighborhoods, so none of this attitude ‘safety for me but not for thee’.

   Second, the italicized argumentation is a strawman, as it presupposes there is no alternative to the exisitng schools – there are alternatives to auto transportation so the comparison is invalid at best, tendentious/mendacious at worst.

   DS

   posted on September 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

3. 3 On September 19th, 2008, Dan said:

   Clarification: more precise is that this italicized argumentation is yet another logical fallacy found on this site – the false equivalence.

   DS

   posted on September 19th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

4. 4 On September 20th, 2008, foxmarks said:

   “there are alternatives to auto transportation”

   But they suck. Or, less rhetorically, the alternatives are not equivalent.

   Making motorists suffer lowers their total utility, because as SD and his pals compulsively ignore, most folks prefer an “autocentric” lifestyle. They wish they could go faster, cheaper. Shifting resources toward pedestrians is not a pareto improvement. Nor is destroying resources like traffic capacity or schools. It’s just a punishment planners hope to exact against unmutual behaviour.

   posted on September 20th, 2008 at 12:38 am

5. 5 On September 20th, 2008, the highwayman said:

   So what you are saying is that a more level playing field is needed?

   Competition is good, but cut throat competition isn’t.

   So what do you propose, reducing spending on roads or increasing spending on transit?

   To me it would be easier just to drasticly reduce spending on roads and then let the invisible hand take care of the rest.

   Also Foxmarks, just because people prefer some thing, doesn’t mean that they can afford it & not every one wants to be forced to use the collective highway system.

   posted on September 20th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

6. 6 On September 20th, 2008, Dan said:

   most folks prefer an “autocentric” lifestyle. They wish they could go faster, cheaper.

   Actually, almost all the recent surveys find that folks want more walkable destinations in their neighborhoods, and more than half would move to such a neighborhood.

   Sorry to burst any bubble connected to your self-identity.

   DS

   posted on September 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

7. 7 On September 20th, 2008, bennett said:

   I recently heard an interview on NPR with locals in Beijing. It was interesting to hear that limiting the number of cars on the road not only worked to temporarily mitigate the air pollution problem but it also made the roads and transit system function much better. Many in Beijing are hoping to make the car restrictions permanent. The most intriguing part was that many would never use public transportation before the car ban because it took so long, but with only half the car on the road people didn’t mind. It made on 1.5 hr. bus commute only 20 mins.

   And not to get way off topic but has anyone on this blog found it interesting that the “free-market” has failed so miserable lately? I just thought that seeing how so many of the arguments against planning are focused on the excellence of the free market someone should bring up the point that free market capitalism is in the crapper right now. If it’s okay to socialize the American financial system, why not transportation/urban development/ etc?

   posted on September 20th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

8. 8 On September 20th, 2008, the highwayman said:

   Though what we have right now isn’t the result of a “free market”, but the result of lots of lobbying & social engineering by various entities. That also happen pay economic hitmen like Mr.O’Toole or Wendell Cox, so they can keep feasting on pork.

   posted on September 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

9. 9 On September 20th, 2008, sustainibertarian said:

   “Of course, that’s the way a lot of urban planners think.”

   Ahhh…get out of my head! Oh wait, the AP isn’t a mind reader and I am not a planner…yet. But mind reading WOULD explain how O’Toole can make a lot the claims about urban planners that he often does.

   posted on September 20th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

10. 10 On September 20th, 2008, foxmarks said:

    Slobbering Dan, you may be a prick, but you’re not bursting any bubbles. Those surveys do not have the value you seem to assign them. People say they want all kinds of stuff when there’s no cost attached. I want antigravity suits and rainbow unicorns if you ask me in a poll. And really, how many of these surveys are there? Who is being asked, and who is doing the asking? Give me context, and correct for bias.

    Further, if respondents “would move”, why don’t they? There’s no shortage of walkable neighborhoods. Affordability ain’t a problem either, highwayman. If walkability is what people want, they could buy up what’s left of old Detroit with the change in their ashtrays. Don’t like winter? You could live in a walkable neighborhood in a Mississippi delta town for what’s between your couch cushions.

    Maybe most of those walkable neighborhoods suck. Not for walkability, but for most of the other stuff people like in the multi-axis real world of choice that exists outside the single-focus Plannerverse.

    I’m not proposing anything. I lack a planner’s arrogance generosity of vision. I’m for the spontaneous order. Let’s all pay what our choices cost. No stolen money to motoring lobby, and no stolen money to the technocrat who thinks all the world needs is more people in Che t-shirts. Government planners seem to think they’re pretty smart people. They should be able to find legitimate work. And if y’all don’t like AP or Wendell Cox, wouldn’t you love to knock down the system you claim feeds them?

    posted on September 20th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

11. 11 On September 21st, 2008, Francis King said:

    foxmarks wrote:

    ‘“there are alternatives to auto transportation”
    But they suck. Or, less rhetorically, the alternatives are not equivalent.’

    Then logically, we need to improve the alternatives.

    posted on September 21st, 2008 at 6:59 am

12. 12 On September 21st, 2008, Dan said:

    Slobbering Dan, you may be a prick, but you’re not bursting any bubbles. Those surveys do not have the value you seem to assign them. People say they want all kinds of stuff when there’s no cost attached.

    Your weak argument bubbles are being burst, however, Mr Grumpy-pants. I’m glad you’re backtracking from ‘no one wants them’ to ‘everyone wants them if they’re free’. Nonetheless,

    Not that it is necessary to pay for walkability and proximate destinations (maybe paying a few more hours to the firm to design them instead of cookie-cuttering them), but nonetheless most folks want these amenities – yes, walkability – are willing to pay more for these amenities, were they more widely available.

    We know this because on the ground away from surveys, the few TND/SG neighborhoods that are available are bid up so folks can have these amenities. As I’ve shown many times here.

    DS

    posted on September 21st, 2008 at 9:53 am

13. 13 On September 21st, 2008, Dan said:

    BTW, there is no reason to call me ‘slobbering Dan’ or ‘a prick’, unless that is the best you can do absent any argument. There are plenty of widdle namie-names for you that can be used.

    Next time I’ll drop Randal a note about your going over the line.

    DS

    posted on September 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am

14. 14 On September 21st, 2008, MJ said:

    This policy will unquestionably fail. That people refuse to behave in the ways that planners (and, it seems, politicians) wish they would is not a recent phenomenon.

    Reducing road capacity will have two effects. First, congestion will worsen and, along with it, air quality. Second, the increased delays will lead to more frustration and more risk-taking on the part of drivers. Whether this will reduce pedestrian safety is not clear, but it cannot increase it.

    The good news is that we will have another example to point to whenever some “forward-thinking” politician proposes another such policy in the future. Hopefully, D.C. will follow up and collect data on its performance.

    The bad news is that evidence on past performance is often ignored (and at worst, manipulated) when such policies are contemplated.

    posted on September 21st, 2008 at 10:25 am

15. 15 On September 21st, 2008, bennett said:

    “Reducing road capacity will have two effects. First, congestion will worsen and, along with it, air quality. Second, the increased delays will lead to more frustration and more risk-taking on the part of drivers.”

    I agree. I think the Beijing approach is much better. Don’t reduce road capacity, reduce road load. That way (road) transit becomes viable and people can use their car more efficiently on certain days. Of course, this means that people will have to plan out their week, but hey, what 10 mins of planning on Saturday compared to saving extra hrs on the road every week?

    posted on September 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am

16. 16 On September 21st, 2008, prk166 said:

    Bennet, interesting point on Beijing. It doesn’t surprise me. China’s govt’s focus has been and still is on full out growth. So things such as pollution controls on cars, buses and such are a side consideration if they get any at all.

    As for the free-market, there hasn’t been one in the financial system. Everyone makes mistakes and no system is perfect. But 2 of the largest driving factors in the recent bubble have been cheap money from the Feds and the Fannies snapping up any old mortgage it could in a large part to obligations it has to HUD and other US govt obligations and pressures. While the exact size of their contribution to the issue is up for debate, it is clear they were driving forces in the mess. Those factors would not exist in a free market.

    posted on September 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm

17. 17 On September 21st, 2008, Dan said:

    16:

    But 2 of the largest driving factors in the recent bubble have been cheap money from the Feds and the Fannies snapping up any old mortgage it could in a large part to obligations it has to HUD and other US govt obligations and pressures. …[t]hose factors would not exist in a free market.

    I disagree. The combination of repeal of Glass-Stigall and lack of regulatory oversight (a Free Market wouldn’t have regulatory oversight) and enforcement for making of risky loans and hiding them in a shell game is what I would expect in a free market. The NeoCons over the last quarter-century have attempted to have more of a free market and this is what we get. Pile that on top of now bailing out these people with our and our children’s money and you have a wealth transfer upward just like you’d have in a free market with information flow like we have now.

    14:

    Reducing road capacity will have two effects. First, congestion will worsen and, along with it, air quality. Second, the increased delays will lead to more frustration and more risk-taking on the part of drivers.

    You forgot:

    Third: people will find alternate forms of transportation like they do now: car-sharing, transit to work and trip chaining, trip reduction, car-sharing and bicycling for nonwork trips.

    There is no reason to believe TPD will remain constant in a constrained transportation shed. Trips to work are only 25% so there is plenty of room for reduction with alternate means.

    We see this already. Why would it stop?

    DS

    posted on September 21st, 2008 at 4:42 pm

18. 18 On September 21st, 2008, bennett said:

    prk,

    You say “cheap money,” I say capitalist greed. Systems my not be perfect, but lack of government intervention into the wheelings and dealings of sleaze bag exces is to blame if you ask me. What I don’t understand is that while this blog blames government planning for almost everything under the sun, (in my opinion) it was the lack of government planning that got us into this mess. What say you antiplanners?

    posted on September 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm

19. 19 On September 22nd, 2008, American Dream News » War on Automobiles said:

    [...] The Antiplanner comments on a report by NBC News that says “D.C. leaders are considering traffic changes that would make driving in the city more challenging for commuters.” [...]

    posted on September 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 am

20. 20 On September 22nd, 2008, the highwayman said:

    As appose to the ADC’s & the AP’s war on transit?

    posted on September 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 am

21. 21 On September 22nd, 2008, prk166 said:

    Can anyone here that is calling for more regulation of the already heavily regulated mortgage market explain how mortgage backed bonds work?

    posted on September 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 am

22. 22 On September 22nd, 2008, Dan said:

    Beggars can’t be choosers now. Too bad BushCo is doing another hurry up and decide. But ‘heavily regulated’ is a joke, and enforcement was gutted.

    Anyway, mortgage-backed securities are instruments that use mortgage payments as collateral. As usual, Motley Fool explains it well. Note the date on the article and the fact that we knew about this problem, yet did nothing except allow transfer of wealth upward.

    DS

    posted on September 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 am

23. 23 On September 22nd, 2008, foxmarks said:

    “I’m glad you’re backtracking from ‘no one wants them’ to ‘everyone wants them if they’re free’”

    No, slobber-boy, if you weren’t blinded by your agenda or your own rhetoric, you could recognize that in the absence of coercion, demand is dependent upon price. The price of walkability is, for most, higher than it’s value. If you could stop huffing your own farts for a few hours, you might look into the depth of demand at various price points. Someone might be willing to pay a $100 millions for a Van Gogh, but hundreds of millions would not. True preference is revealed by action, not by surveys.

    “a Free Market wouldn’t have regulatory oversight”

    False, Captain Drool! A free market requires regulatory oversight, as it is based upon trust rather than coercion. The essential distinction is in who provides the oversight. Order can exist, and has existed, without law. Since we’re not in Anarchtopia, the question becomes where to place the limits on government action. It is not a question of free vs. unfree, but of the degree of freedom allowed, deceasing the ham-handedness of regulatory schemes, and the ultimate goal toward which we strive. Are we aiming for perfect coercion or perfect liberty? Either philosophy allows no compromise.

    Now go tell your mommy somebody on the playground called you rude names. I’ve previously stated that jerking you around is one of my main pleasures in commenting here. I get almost the same value just reading AP’s thoughts…most of y’all plannuts add zero to the discussion, even though AP has been gracious and complimentary toward your nauseous emanations.

    posted on September 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm

24. 24 On September 22nd, 2008, Dan said:

    slobber-boy, Captain Drool…

    Got it. Your comments aren’t worth reading. You must call widdle namie-names to make up for something.

    Buh-bye now! Must contact Greasemonkey for a killfile update.

    DS

    posted on September 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm

25. 25 On September 23rd, 2008, MJ said:

    “You forgot: people will find alternate forms of transportation…”

    First, there is a reason that travelers are not availing themselves of other modes. It is because they offer less utility (and privacy, and safety…). Forcing people into these modes by making driving in DC even more miserable (now that’s tough to do) will reduce their utility, make driving worse for those who do not switch, and generally leave everyone worse off.

    Travel behavior and traffic flow are not static phenomena, and hence do not lend themselves to simple accounting exercises. Behavioral models let you know what people value. Those that include dynamic elements are even better.

    Closing the I-395 freeway leaves travelers with few alternatives. Other entry points are already near or at capacity during peak periods. Add a little inclement weather, and things break down completely. Metro subway officials are already trying to discourage additional peak-period travel, since they cannot afford to provide additional capacity (and in some places, cannot physically do so). Since the District is a major employment center, it does not make much sense to suggest that trips will simply go away. Like most cities, DC is most congested during traditional work start/stop times. That is because most of these workers do not have flexible schedules.

    “We see this already. Why should it stop?”

    Really, where? I’d love to hear about it.

    posted on September 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 am

26. 26 On September 23rd, 2008, Dan said:

    Really, where? I’d love to hear about it.

    Transit boardings are up. Carsharing numbers are up. Bike trips & sales are up*. The ‘where’ part? All over. That’s what people do.

    DS

    * http://tinyurl.com/628xn7

    posted on September 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 am

27. 27 On September 24th, 2008, the highwayman said:

    MJ, other viable travel options have to exist & this is exactly what O’Toole(along with Cox) get paid to prevent.

    posted on September 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

28. 28 On September 30th, 2008, MJ said:

    Dan,

    Your first link was to a non-specific site called MLive. I did not see the article you were looking for.

    The second one was to the Bikes Belong coalition website, trumpeting increases in bicycle sales. I heard the same story a few months ago through our local news media. It makes for a good story, but it also illustrates the difference between relative and absolute changes in quantities.

    The changes the bike shops are talking about may be large for them (relative to whatever base sales they were experiencing), but in practical terms they are at best minor players on the urban transportation scene. They most certainly will not be able to absorb large increases in traffic, much less mitigate existing traffic problems in places like DC. These measures are at best platitudes by a political administration looking to promote its “progressive” credentials. It is not also clear how much of this change is due to rising fuel prices, as opposed to people buying bikes for other reasons, such as leisure (I bought one last year in order to give me a new way to get exercise).

    A couple of days ago, a local paper printed offered a story on how bicycle commuting increased by 49% in the city of Minneapolis. Eye-popping statistic, right? Yet when I looked at the margin of error for the 2006 and 2007 samples (these were American Community Survey data), one could not reject the simple hypothesis that these observed differences in means were due simply to sampling error. Fragile statistical foundations. The takeaway point for me was that this was much ado about nothing, which was what I initially suspected.

    People will adjust to higher fuel prices if left well enough alone. They do not need elite opinion to push them in one direction or another.

    ““…other viable travel options have to exist & this is exactly what O’Toole (along with Cox) get paid to prevent.”

    In Washington, other travel options do exist and are already heavily promoted/encouraged. We have more or less reached the limits of what social engineering can accomplish. Most people will continue to not behave the way urban planners and transportation planners want them to. Randal and Wendell Cox have stated repeatedly that they do not wish to impose a particular lifestyle on urban residents (though I think Randal makes the argument in a more convincing fashion). Suggesting that current outcomes are a direct result of their advocacy efforts is probably giving them too much credit.

    posted on September 30th, 2008 at 10:29 am

29. 29 On October 26th, 2008, the highwayman said:

    Though O’Toole & Cox are guilty of doing social engineering for their benefactors as well, like the Kochs.

    Then why not do an act of reverse social engineering, let’s restore the streetcar system that Washington DC once had?

    posted on October 26th, 2008 at 2:18 am

30. 30 On October 28th, 2008, The Agitator » Blog Archive » Morning Links said:

    [...] D.C. Metro to start random bag searches. This would be the same D.C. government that’s punishing drivers with increasingly punitive penalties in an effort to make driving more difficult, and get more people taking public transportation. I guess the message is, if you want to get around, be prepared to take a pass on the Fourth Amendment. [...]

    posted on October 28th, 2008 at 6:02 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.