4 ms·

Raising the cost to drive isn't going to make people stop driving unless they have good alternatives, you're just making their life more expensive. Most of the

Raising the cost to drive isn't going to make people stop driving unless they have good alternatives, you're just making their life more expensive. Most of the cars on the road are people going somewhere they need to go. Transit in the SF bay is pretty expensive and also not super viable for getting around, at least currently. It's a short walk to a local Caltrain station for me and I can take it almost directly to my official desk in San Francisco, but doing so takes ~2hrs and costs me ~$10 one-way. Barely competitive (cost-wise) with driving a car and considerably slower than driving. Time is money, so the idea of throwing away 2 hrs/day of my life and not saving money vs driving is not especially compelling and I can't blame people w/2-3 jobs for hopping in their car if it's the best choice. (I work from home instead, but most people don't have that option) I think the (one-off) example from the article is interesting because it shows that if you lower transit costs, usage does go up and traffic improves. Improved traffic means that the people who do drive will be spending less time on the road, which means burning less gas - less money spent on gas and less climate impact. Incidentally we do have some toll roads in the area, which I guess does have your intended effect because nobody wants to use them? They just use other roads instead. We can certainly reshape cities, but "quickly" in that context would be decades, and in that time period people will be miserable and will end up homeless or worse.

vl 7y ago
Transparent cost of driving will promote development of alternatives, change real estate prices and influence working/living arrangements. Long term result will be better public transit, better cities, business situated at better locations. Right now this cost indirectly paid by everyone, greatly reducing quality of life. Once it’s direct, it’s way easier for market to optimize around it.
susijdjdjxa 7y ago
Two hours is a very long Caltrain, do you live in Gilroy or something?
- deathanatos 7y ago
  He might be comparing door-to-door, which is what you really should be doing if you want an apples-to-apples comparison. Just counting the scheduled time means you're ignoring delays (Caltrain suffers delays on a regular basis), wait time (Caltrain has scheduled waits of up to 40 minutes even during rush hour².), and whatever driving/walking/biking you need on the last mile either side. E.g., catching the 7:28a gets you to SF at 8:54a¹, for a train time of 1h 26m. Wait is between 0 and 22 minutes, so let's use the average of 11m: 1h 37m. 10 minute walk/bike either side, and it's 1h 57m. That ride costs $298.50/mo, or about $7.50 one-way. ¹if you transfer to the bullet. If you don't, add 6 minutes. ²e.g., 7:25a at Mountain View, NB. The next fastest train to SF departs at 8:05a. The 7:46a train departs sooner, but arrives 6 minutes after the 8:05a.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Also anything scheduled, you have to be there early enough to account for uncertainty, and there's no flexibility. This both consumes time and prevents you from doing things. This seems like, too obvious, and yet I think it's ignored as a major factor in why people don't take buses and trains if they can afford not to. If I'm ten minutes late leaving for work in a car, I might be ten minutes late to work. If I'm ten minutes late for the bus (which already requires me to be earlier) then I'm going to be way late for work, depending on when the next bus is. Someone in another thread was telling me 5 miles is a long way in a city, but I used to live literally a few hundred feet from work and yet my commute was about ten minutes, either by bus or by car, compared to my current location 5 miles away that takes about the same time. There were various reasons, from the roads being perpendicular to the direction required, and living in a multistory building that required several minutes of walking to get to the parking garage or bus stop. Why didn't I walk? I did try it a few times, but it required crossing two highways where people go over 50 mph, a street in the middle where people often go 40 or over, no crosswalks whatsoever, and a line of people merging on to the highway in the morning rush who all want to run you over. So anyway, this is the best possible scenario for a bus, and it only could match a car (or walking) in time elapsed. Bus fare is cheaper than owning a car, but if you're going to have a car anyway, it's not that much cheaper than gas & wear, if at all. I have a few times taken the bus something like 10+ miles when I didn't have my car and it takes an incredible amount of time, so if I'm not a few hundred feet from somewhere, then the bus doesn't work for me then either. As long as I own a functioning car.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
>Raising the cost to drive isn't going to make people stop driving unless they have good alternatives, you're just making their life more expensive. When I was on a budget, I certainly factored in tolls in my costs to see if I could afford them or not. I don't see why tolls of $10, $20, $50, $100 wouldn't start changing behavior.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Your driving cost, according to AAA, is far likely closer to $25 - $40, one-way, when you count full cost of ownership (lower for higher mileage, and at 100 miles round-trip daily you're likely hitting about 20k miles/year). See: https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/driving-costs/ https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/driving-costs/ This doesn't count parking costs, which in SF tend about $25 - $50/day, somewhat lower with monthly parking if you can find it. That doesn't win back the additional hour you're spending on and to CalTrain, but does make the transit option considerably less expensive.

vl 7y ago

Transparent cost of driving will promote development of alternatives, change real estate prices and influence working/living arrangements. Long term result will be better public transit, better cities, business situated at better locations. Right now this cost indirectly paid by everyone, greatly reducing quality of life. Once it’s direct, it’s way easier for market to optimize around it.

susijdjdjxa 7y ago

Two hours is a very long Caltrain, do you live in Gilroy or something?

deathanatos 7y ago
He might be comparing door-to-door, which is what you really should be doing if you want an apples-to-apples comparison. Just counting the scheduled time means you're ignoring delays (Caltrain suffers delays on a regular basis), wait time (Caltrain has scheduled waits of up to 40 minutes even during rush hour².), and whatever driving/walking/biking you need on the last mile either side. E.g., catching the 7:28a gets you to SF at 8:54a¹, for a train time of 1h 26m. Wait is between 0 and 22 minutes, so let's use the average of 11m: 1h 37m. 10 minute walk/bike either side, and it's 1h 57m. That ride costs $298.50/mo, or about $7.50 one-way. ¹if you transfer to the bullet. If you don't, add 6 minutes. ²e.g., 7:25a at Mountain View, NB. The next fastest train to SF departs at 8:05a. The 7:46a train departs sooner, but arrives 6 minutes after the 8:05a.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Also anything scheduled, you have to be there early enough to account for uncertainty, and there's no flexibility. This both consumes time and prevents you from doing things. This seems like, too obvious, and yet I think it's ignored as a major factor in why people don't take buses and trains if they can afford not to. If I'm ten minutes late leaving for work in a car, I might be ten minutes late to work. If I'm ten minutes late for the bus (which already requires me to be earlier) then I'm going to be way late for work, depending on when the next bus is. Someone in another thread was telling me 5 miles is a long way in a city, but I used to live literally a few hundred feet from work and yet my commute was about ten minutes, either by bus or by car, compared to my current location 5 miles away that takes about the same time. There were various reasons, from the roads being perpendicular to the direction required, and living in a multistory building that required several minutes of walking to get to the parking garage or bus stop. Why didn't I walk? I did try it a few times, but it required crossing two highways where people go over 50 mph, a street in the middle where people often go 40 or over, no crosswalks whatsoever, and a line of people merging on to the highway in the morning rush who all want to run you over. So anyway, this is the best possible scenario for a bus, and it only could match a car (or walking) in time elapsed. Bus fare is cheaper than owning a car, but if you're going to have a car anyway, it's not that much cheaper than gas & wear, if at all. I have a few times taken the bus something like 10+ miles when I didn't have my car and it takes an incredible amount of time, so if I'm not a few hundred feet from somewhere, then the bus doesn't work for me then either. As long as I own a functioning car.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

>Raising the cost to drive isn't going to make people stop driving unless they have good alternatives, you're just making their life more expensive. When I was on a budget, I certainly factored in tolls in my costs to see if I could afford them or not. I don't see why tolls of $10, $20, $50, $100 wouldn't start changing behavior.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Your driving cost, according to AAA, is far likely closer to $25 - $40, one-way, when you count full cost of ownership (lower for higher mileage, and at 100 miles round-trip daily you're likely hitting about 20k miles/year). See: https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/driving-costs/ https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/driving-costs/ This doesn't count parking costs, which in SF tend about $25 - $50/day, somewhat lower with monthly parking if you can find it. That doesn't win back the additional hour you're spending on and to CalTrain, but does make the transit option considerably less expensive.