Those wacky planners are always coming up with crazy ideas. Recently, a planner over at Planetizen proposed that cities should remove urban freeways.
His reasoning was simple. Freeways are ugly. Cars are evil. Freeways induce more driving. So if we get rid of the freeways, people will drive less and everyone will be happier.
Beauty vs. mobility?
Flickr photo by gsgeorge
I can’t argue with the notion that some freeways are ugly, but so are a lot of things and beauty, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. Everything else about this argument is simply wrong.
Let’s focus on the induced-driving myth. Robert Cervero says that new roads can “induce” driving in several ways: people whose travel was suppressed by congestion feel free to travel again; people who were using other forms of transportation start driving; people change their destinations to take advantage of new facilities; and people who had been driving on more congested roads elsewhere are diverted to the new roads.
Cervero argues that the last type — people diverted from other roads — should not be considered induced because it is not adding any new driving in the region. From the numbers i have seen, at least half of the increased driving we see on new freeways falls into this category.
In some cases, healthy lifestyle changes can levitra without prescription also affect BP. Those who suffer from symptoms of menopause buy 10mg levitra have a low self-esteem and depression. Laser: It is designed to penetrate tissues to increase length and girth of the male levitra generika 40mg organ. tadalafil cheap prices Know the dose to takeYou need to take the Silagra pill an hour before the sexual activity, so that you are aware of how it will suit you and your needs.
But beyond this, Cervero says the whole induced-driving argument is a sham. After all, what is wrong with restoring mobility to people whose travel is suppressed? What is wrong with increasing the mobility of people who were stuck on slow transit systems that don’t go where they want to go?
Transit advocates are quick to point out the advantages of, say, spending $16 billion on a new subway line in Manhattan because it will save some people from walking an extra couple of blocks. But they pour scorn on the idea that a freeway provides increased mobility when it leads to new traffic.
Instead of worrying about induced demand, says Cervero, “far more energies need to go toward studying how America can best invest and manage scarce urban transportation resources.”
Marcotico, one of the people commenting on the Planetizen article about removing urban freeways claims that “mass transit takes off when other options become unattractive.” He also adds, in response to another commenter who said that congestion is harming San Francisco’s economy, “I hardly think that San Francisco is suffering from economic problems.”
This is what makes urban planners so much fun. They take firm stands on issues without checking them out. Mass transit carries just 4 percent of passenger travel in the San Francisco Bay Area — is that how we define “takes off”? Meanwhile, the Bay Area has grown by just 0.1 percent per year since 2000. This slow growth reflects the departure of employers to other regions that are less regulated, less costly, and yes, less congested.
Instead of tearing out urban freeways, we need to talk about how we can best relieve the congestion that is stifling urban economies. If freeways are the best way to do it, we can then talk about what can be done to make those freeways a little more aesthetically pleasing.
But that won’t be enough for some planning advocates. Marcotico reveals the real agenda when he adds: “I hope [people who drive] will be more and more, forced to choose also to sit in traffic as trains and BART wizz by them.” Increasing congestion does not get significant people out of their cars, but it punishes them for driving. If planners experience schadenfreude from congestion, that is enough for some of them to justify removing urban freeways.
The congestion resulted from building up buildings faster than building up the transport infrastructure. The quickest solution is to tear down trip-generating buildings such as professional sports stadia, office buildings, schools, theaters and stores.
California has already experimented with economics to reduce congestion – make it less profitable for business and businesses will move away and take congestion with them.
A more positive approach is to build up the transport infrastructure to the point where there is enough excess capacity to make the congestion disappear. The most economical way to do this in high-priced real estate areas is to build elevated guideways to carry small automated demand-response vehicles.
See Jerry Schneider’s website for some examples http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/
Our transportation problems are socioeconomic in nature, not technological. Fixing urban transportation problems using transit needs to needs to follow the principles outlined 30 years ago here.
The shortcomings of PRT and other “gadgetbahns” was succinctly outlined by Leroy Demery and myself here, which is supported by the first link above.
Please explain how my abandoning my car for transit will improve MY life?
Will it give me a wider choice of jobs?
Will it save me time?
Will it be more convient?
Will it be safer?
Thanks
JK
Good point Jim. What planners seem to not recognize everyone will ask themselves that same questions before abandoning their cars and using public transit. Almost universally they will say it does not improve things do why do it. Those few who’s lives it does improve are already using it.
What planners seem to not recognize everyone will ask themselves that same questions before abandoning their cars and using public transit.
What ideologues hope is not noticed is that it is a false premise to argue that planners ask people to “abandon” their cars.
DS
Dan:What ideologues hope is not noticed is that it is a false premise to argue that planners ask people to “abandon†their cars.
JK:Not in Perfectly Planned Portland:
Joe Zehnder, the principal planner with the Portland Planning Bureau, defends compact urban development as a way to reduce dependence on automobiles. From:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117701496867496300
Reduce dependence = “abandon”.
Huh.
Who knew?
DS
Dan: Reduce dependence = “abandonâ€Â.
Huh.
Who knew?
JK: Having trouble with code words, are we?
Thanks
JK
Dan,
Be reasonable. The term abandon in this context means to not use as a primary means of transport. It doesn’t do any of us any good to discuss these issues if we play word games.
Many planners seek to diminish the use of cars through various strategies. They are failing to look at the issue as a more personal choice by individuals rather than some sort of societal choice.
r.e., Comment No. 9
Huh?
Just WHY should be look at the issue as “a more personal choice by individuals rather than some sort of societal choice?”
Your logic makes no sense in light of the national security issues alone brought up by excessive oil imports, as http://www.setamericafree.org makes abundantly clear, even if I don’t want to make their riverboat gamble that only pluggable hybrids, or dubious expectations for ethanol and other “biofuels,” will somehow “preserve the American way of life,” e.g., allowing us to continue to drive our cars without any sort of reductions whatever. I seriously doubt these panaceas are nearly as good as many people think.
The smart money would see that development of a high quality electric-powered intercity and urban transit network is also an excellent hedge in case their excessive faith in problematic batter technology, e.g., lithium-ion, fails to pan out.
As someone who is NOT skeptical of science, as opposed to apparently, you, and of course Gridlock Karlock, I’d say global warming, the spectre of peak oil, and our national insecurity from excessive oil imports from politically unstable parts of the work, trump the untrammed results of “individual choice” in this important case.
As you may or may not know, several years ago, Wendell Cox influenced his fellow travelers in “The Lone Mountain Compact” to adopt the mantra
The most fundamental principle is that, absent a material threat to other individuals or the community, people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/enviro/lonemtn.html
Well, in my view, global warming, the spectre of peak oil and national security meet The Wendell Cox Test, if you will, and warrants prompt societal action to mitigate the excesses of individual choices left unchecked.
The most important change is to implement a gradually increasing “polluter pays” carbon tax to force a gradual shift away from carbon-based fossil fuels a la Al Gore. The general abolition of off-street parking requirements a la Donald Shoup should be implemented, as well as the gradual implementation of a vehicle mileage tax as a proxy to pay for the “externalities” of auto use, and to pay for continued road maintenance after liquid fuel consumption is gradually reduced by motor vehicles.
At the beginning, a sufficient portion of the carbon tax needs to go to fund the great deal of work needed to catch up on 80 years of neglect for electrified railroads, high speed rail, and electrified transit in the busiest urban corridors along with electric buses in less busy corridors. The lion’s share of the carbon tax should be rebated to individuals and families, to replace payroll, sales and income taxes but also in a manner to offset the argument that higher energy taxes would impoverish the less affluent further–if done right, it would not.
(RE: #10):
Mikemikemike.
Sigh. Mike. Miiiiiike.
It’s about the freedom.
Freedom, Mike, freedom. What this country was founded upon – freedom. Freedom, Mike.
You remember freedom?
The freedom to choose between the car, the car, the car, the car, or the car.
Get with the program. Freedom to choose the car, or the car.
DS
Msetty,
I appreciate your comments. The reason we should look at this as a personal choice is because as much as society may want to control these choices it does not. The reality is individual choices create the collective choice, not the other way around. I’m not saying it’s the best way in every issue but it is how it works. To deny that is ignoring reality.
A couple of other points. Peak oil has been predicted for decades but we never seem to get there. If there is any theory that has been thoroughly debunked it’s peak oil.
Scientist themselves are skeptical. Theories and hypothesis are replicated and proven for a reason. Anyone who is not skeptical is somewhat naive.
While we may disagree on various solutions it is very important we agree on certain facts surrounding the debate. As they say, we are all entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts.
I have no problem with tearing out some highways… it’s easy to forget that highways were a government construct which involved serious abuse of eminent domain. My problem is that it’s wrong to think two wrong will make a right like the greens do, we’ll fight one government construct (highways) with another (public transit) and that will make things better. I’d have rather we built all highways in the “beltway” fashion like they did in Europe than right through cities.
Of course once I tell greens that I think privatizing and desubsidizing highways will help out their side, they hit the roof. Without the power of eminent domain and government power, rail and air will be more able to compete with highways. But privatizing is evil and we wouldn’t want that!!