3 ms·

You are missing an important point of the article. Voters for this measure believed increased transit would reduce congestion for drivers, but it doesn’t usual

You are missing an important point of the article. Voters for this measure believed increased transit would reduce congestion for drivers, but it doesn’t usually work that way in practice. Even the most transit-friendly cities in the world have clogged freeways. The benefits of increased transit is significant and worth supporting, but reduced congestion is not one of those benefits.

SilasX 8y ago
It's not an issue of "clogged" vs "not clogged" but "more clogged" vs "less clogged" and "have an option to bypass gridlock" vs "don't have an option". You have to compare to the counterfactual. Yes, transit-friendly cities have clogged freeways, but it's much better than it would be if they didn't have the trains at all -- see what happens whenever BART shuts down.
clairity 8y ago
to expand, adding transit capacity doesn't reduce traffic because we are well undersupplied for (latent and induced) road capacity demand at peak usage. additional supply is swallowed up by overwhelming demand because we're far from market equilibrium. we won't be able to build enough to satiate demand in the near future. but if you look at it economically, adding transit (or road) capacity is a net positive since part of what drives economic activity is the ease with which you can execute transactions in person. so the main benefit of transit is more economic activity, not less congestion. so transit funding was never really about materially impacting transit/commute times. but now that we have transit funding, LA and the state are both working on upzoning around transit corridors. for example, sb-50 (fka sb-827): https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-housing-bill-transit-20180325-htmlstory.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-housing-bill-tr... upzoning can actually reduce some congestion but it's not enough by itself. we also need to properly price in good/timely maintenance and the externalities of pollution. we need to greatly speed up the government agencies/bureaucracies that slow down construcion (permitting, inspection, planning review, etc.). we need to reduce dishonest roadblocks meant to stop development by making it prohibitively expensive (e.g., many ceqa challenges). we need to better control rent-seeking behaviors around real estate. more housing, and a more responsive housing market, means people can move more easily, reduce commute times, and thereby reduce congestion.

SilasX 8y ago

It's not an issue of "clogged" vs "not clogged" but "more clogged" vs "less clogged" and "have an option to bypass gridlock" vs "don't have an option". You have to compare to the counterfactual. Yes, transit-friendly cities have clogged freeways, but it's much better than it would be if they didn't have the trains at all -- see what happens whenever BART shuts down.

clairity 8y ago

to expand, adding transit capacity doesn't reduce traffic because we are well undersupplied for (latent and induced) road capacity demand at peak usage. additional supply is swallowed up by overwhelming demand because we're far from market equilibrium. we won't be able to build enough to satiate demand in the near future. but if you look at it economically, adding transit (or road) capacity is a net positive since part of what drives economic activity is the ease with which you can execute transactions in person. so the main benefit of transit is more economic activity, not less congestion. so transit funding was never really about materially impacting transit/commute times. but now that we have transit funding, LA and the state are both working on upzoning around transit corridors. for example, sb-50 (fka sb-827): https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-housing-bill-transit-20180325-htmlstory.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-housing-bill-tr... upzoning can actually reduce some congestion but it's not enough by itself. we also need to properly price in good/timely maintenance and the externalities of pollution. we need to greatly speed up the government agencies/bureaucracies that slow down construcion (permitting, inspection, planning review, etc.). we need to reduce dishonest roadblocks meant to stop development by making it prohibitively expensive (e.g., many ceqa challenges). we need to better control rent-seeking behaviors around real estate. more housing, and a more responsive housing market, means people can move more easily, reduce commute times, and thereby reduce congestion.