Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda
That is very easy to explain. London de facto priced the poor out of their cars leaving only with those with means to be able to continue to drive. Not only is this ironic as many advocating for public transportation usually do so under the pretense of supporting the poor, but it represents bad policy as it is unsustainable to use it to fund transit and requires makeshift solutions like the Stockholm 'solution' in order to keep it going. Congestion pricing is a horrible practice and it is very sad NYC plans to go that route.
A better example would be Seattle as they have considerably increased their infrastructure building both new freeway lanes and new rail/active transit infrastructure and their modal share has seemingly moved towards people using the latter. SLC has been widening freeways like mad, adding tons of people, building new rail and BRT and they have seen almost no increase of congestion in the metro.
|
How can you say it's "very easy to explain" then post some unsourced, uncorroborated claims like these?
Maybe the congestion tax just convinced more people to use public transit because it was now a cheaper option? History has shown that when you facilitate driving either by policy or financially, people will always choose it as a way of getting around. In a place like London where congestion was becoming out of control, it's a great way to discourage people from driving, especially when the regional public transportation network is so developed.
Given that "the poors" are often the ones who drive the least because of the prohibitive costs of owning a car, I don't see why you automatically associate a modal shift from driving to public transit to poor people being priced out. What if they're middle/upple middle class people? Such a lazy, simplistic explanation to a complex situation.
I get it dude, you're for public transit, but as long as it doesn't come to the expense of freeway expansion. Which is sad really, because it has been proven that highway expansion coupled with transit expansion has a cancelling effect due to the induced demand principle (which you don't believe in, for some reason). Expanding roadway capacity whilst expanding your transit system is the best way to double your expenses while not improving mobility in your city.
Like I said, you don't seem to understand much of what I'm saying, so I don't really feel like pursuing the discussion. You're just like most Americans, not willing to give up your precious car to save the environment and make cities better.
Threaded Mode