Someone suggested that New York City subways be replaced with hoverboards, and the internet went nuts. Or at least some people on the internet went nuts.
The normally pro-transit Atlantic Monthly published an article by Peter Wayner — author of Future Ride: 80 Ways the Self-Driving Car Will Change Everything — suggesting that the projected $19 billion cost of fixing the New York City subway was too much. Instead, he proposed something “radically different”: to tear out the rails and open up the subways to private operators of shared, autonomous vehicles. Instead of full-sized cars, he predicted that the market would lead private companies to use what he called “hoverboards,” by which I think he meant electric scooters and Segway-like vehicles.
“This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read about the NYC Subway,” responded my friend (frenemy?) Charles Marohn. “Makes Randal O’Toole’s idea to just run buses in the tunnels look reasonable.”
Jarrett Walker, another friend/frenemy, posted a longer response on the Atlantic‘s City Lab web site. Wayner’s proposal, said Walker, “would only exclude the riders who need it most.”
Wayner he believes his proposal would increase the number of people who could use the subways each day. Because individual vehicles wouldn’t have to stop at every station, they could move faster and, when they did stop at redesigned stations, they would be out of the way of other vehicles passing through.
Without doing any calculations, Walker takes it for granted that Wayner’s proposal would reduce throughput. I think Walker is assuming that the autonomous vehicles in the subways would be full-sized cars, so they would take more or less the full width of the area now being used for one subway line, whereas Wayner is projecting much smaller vehicles. Walker never examines the possibility that smaller vehicles could increase throughput and instead bases his entire article on the assumption that they would not.
We know that some busways around the world move a lot more people per hour than New York City subway trains. Individual trains can hold more people than a bus, but no New York subway line can safely move more than about 30 trains an hour. Busways can move hundreds of buses per hour, making up for the lower capacity of each bus, which is why I proposed replacing trains with buses.
The subtitle for Wayner’s Future Ride book notes that “Autonomous Cars Will Change Everything from Buying Groceries to Teen Romance to Surving a Hurricane.” I think he meant “surviving a hurricane,” but leaving such an egregious typo on the cover of his book isn’t a testament to his careful research.
Thus, my inclination is to suspect that Walker is correct that Wayner’s proposed system would reduce subway throughput. But the idea should not be dismissed out of hand. A system that was truly open to all private operators would lead those operators to develop vehicles that can produce the highest throughput, because the largest numbers of riders would earn the most profits for the operators. That might result in buses, as I propose, or in smaller vehicles, as Wayner suspects.
On a related subject, the Congressional Research Service recently published a paper on the decline in transit ridership and what it means for federal policy. The paper contains several reasonable ideas, including:
- “One option to boost ridership without raising funding would be to tie federal formula funds to ridership or fare revenue.”
- “If the most consequential uncertainty for transit ridership is the introduction of autonomous vehicles, federal funding might focus on buses, which last about 10 years, and not new rail systems that last 30 years or more.”
- “Another option would be to redirect CIG funding from building new rail systems and lines to refurbishing rail transit in the large and dense cities where rail transit currently carries large numbers of riders.”
You can treat male impotence with Kamagra form that can buy cheap viagra be done about it. Best penis enlargement pills are a response for all penis related and sex related issues. 20mg tadalafil What would you say when you see your partner. cheap viagra canada Micheal (Rita’s husband) was previously very viagra generic good in the bed.
Noting that highway user fees only cover part of the cost of highways, roads, and streets, the paper also points out that increasing “user fees on automobiles would make transit comparatively more attractive.” The Antiplanner supports increasing road fees (preferably through mileage-based user fees) to cover the costs of roads. But I don’t support increasing fees with the goal of trying to force people onto transit. While only a small increase in fees is needed to cover road costs, massive increases would be needed to significantly increase transit ridership. All this would do would reduce American mobility without producing any offsetting benefits.
“Noting that highway user fees only cover part of the cost of highways, roads, and streets, the paper also points out that increasing “user fees on automobiles would make transit comparatively more attractive.”
I doubt it, fixed legislation to keep highway money………..preserved for highways. Whining in California over raising gas taxes, yes it’s true that gas taxes in Cali are particularly high, it’s worth noting Cali has more highways and major roads than most other states. All in all the US pays fairly little in gas taxes because gas is relatively cheap compared to other places. US the average price as of June 11th was $2.92 in Canada it was 3.70 Equivalent.
Gas tax rates (US dollar) per US gallon world wide equivalent
Australia 1.40
Austria 2.46
Canada 1.25
Denmark 2.95
France 3.07
Germany 3.29
Japan 2.16
Korea 2.69
UK 3.44
US 0.53 average (state variable, federal 18.6 cents)
In most of those countries above despite their taxes being anywhere from four, five, over SIX times higher per gallon! Driving is still their majority mode of transportation. Difference is they drive more fuel efficient cars. A lot of these countries also have Impeccably well maintained highways. The fact is, motor fuel taxes haven’t deterred driving as the transit advocates thought. In 2015 the US consumed 140 billion gallons of gasoline, at an average tax of 53 cents that’s 74.2 Billion in revenue. We’d accomplish a 1.4 billion raise in revenue average for every penny raise in tax. I’m not saying that gas should be as expensive as Europe or Asia, but in the 1980’s Reagan conceded with a democratic congress, rather than perpetuate a standoff, he and Congress agreed that a slight tax increase would benefit in the long run by raising badly needed revenue for the massive infrastructure deficit we suffered nationwide.
Noting that highway user fees only cover part of the cost of highways, roads, and streets, the paper also points out that increasing “user fees on automobiles would make transit comparatively more attractive.”
Similarly, increasing user fees on transit would make automobiles comparatively more attractive. In fact, the case can be made that transit users should subsidize roads because they receive their goods locally via road.
The users of both modes of transport should pay the full cost. Local governments can decide to subsidize low-income riders if their voters wish.
Yes it’s a novel and foolish idea. The transit industry would be fools to go out and argue road utilization not receive subsidies.
Antiplanner often notes costs to driving average 25-26 cents per mile, of which subsidies only alot 1 cent. If subsidies were eliminated, the motorist get’s dinged a penny a mile. But they’d continue on, keep on motoring. So if transit advocates and enthusiasts encourage de-subsidization of the highway system it would merely spearhead mileage based or some sort of geographic user fees which libertarians and some conservatives are pushing for anyway.
If subsidies to transit were reduced, the industry would suffer, if subsidies were eliminated, the industry would collapse; requiring a 100,200,300,400% increase in fares to cover their operating costs.
The transit industry has several Achilles heels.
One is gas taxes are insufficient in scale to cover transits operating costs because they only get a small portion. Using the money to pay for HOT/HOV/Bus lanes is cost equitable. Buses and cars use those roads Using gas taxes to pay for rail transit actually self defeating measure because since they’re only entitled to a portion of the revenue the only way to get more of it is to either raise the tax (which mostly get’s voted down) or humorously enough encourage more auto driving to accumulate more revenue.
Two; inflation has stuttered future plans; the dollar has lost 19% of it’s purchasing power since 2008. Price of gasoline adjusted for inflation hasn’t changed much since 1929. Inflation however has vastly affected transit industries future plans for expansion.
Third; Transit agencies across the nation are going broke anyway, regardless of the amount of bailout money they may receive. Their public employee obligations are their final death blow.
CapitalistRoader; Similarly, increasing user fees on transit would make automobiles comparatively more attractive. In fact, the case can be made that transit users should subsidize roads because they receive their goods locally via road.
THWM; Roads are mostly paid for by property taxes and are not expected to be profitable to survive.
Funny how you teahadi’s aren’t against socialism when it comes to roads :$
Roads are mostly paid for by property taxes……Yeah otherwise how else are you to leave your property…..Dumbass.
Obsessions, repetitive behaviour and routines can be a source of enjoyment for autistic people and a way of coping with everyday life. But they may also limit people’s involvement in other activities and cause distress or anxiety. Reality to an autistic person is a confusing, interacting mass of events, people, places, sounds and sights… Set routines, times, particular routes and rituals all help to get order into an unbearably chaotic life. Trying to keep everything the same reduces some of the terrible fear.
You teahadi’s aren’t complaining that you got screwed over. You’re complaining that you didn’t screw other people/places/things over. You guys are sociopaths :$
Our teahadi’s what?
I guess you missed this part, H-man:
The users of both modes of transport should pay the full cost.
What would subway fare by if riders had to pay both operation and capital costs? $10/ride?