7 ms·

The number of buildings in walking distance to a train station is very limited. Your case can't be generalized. Yes. Roads can also be optimized.

Johnny555 6y ago
The number of buildings in walking distance to a train station is very limited. Your case can't be generalized. The number of buildings within close commute distance of an airport is even more limited, airports are big and loud and no one wants one close to the city center. Take, for example, travel from Buckingham Palace to the Louvre, the cities are they are connected by a high speed train, but neither source or destination is within close walking distance. The total trip length by train is 3:30 including taking a train to St Pancras, Eurostar high speed rail to Gare du Nord, then a train to the Louvre. By plane, LHR to CDG is only 1:20. Paddington station to LHR is only around 15 minutes, but it'll take you 20 minutes to get to Paddington. And once you get to the airport, allow 10 - 15 minutes from the Heathrow Express train to the terminal. So you've got 50 minutes of travel time to your get. And you need to allow time for security, and to get to your gate so get there 30 minutes early. Now you're up to 1:20 just to get to your flight. Airports, being so large, are located far from downtown, so it'll take you 45 minutes by train to get from CDG to the Louvre, but add 15 minutes to get off the plane and walk to the train. So that's an hour. So you've got 1:20 + 1:20 + 1:00 = 3:40 by air. Yes. Roads can also be optimized. LA has devoted around 30% of its land area to roads, yet they still have some of the worst traffic congestion in the country, how much can roads be optimized?
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  Very easily! Use congestion pricing.
  - Johnny555 6y ago
    When you see an "easy" solution to congestion, there are usually factors that make it not so easy - if cities rely on cars for personal transport and don't provide a transit alternative, then congestion pricing alone isn't going to help other than being a regressive tax on the people that can least afford to pay it. The $200K/year software engineer can avoid the $10 tax by working from home until 10am when the rate drops to $5. The $30K/year service worker doesn't have that option, when his workday starts at 9am, he has no choice. And you can only stretch out the commute so far with congestion pricing before the morning commute runs into the afternoon commute, already in the bay area (pre-covid), I was seeing stop and go traffic from early afternoon through 8pm or so. COVID has been a nice reprieve from the traffic, but many companies want their employees back in the office, so within a year or so, traffic levels will be back to pre-covid levels, maybe worse because many people moved farther away when they were working from home.
    - baggy_trough 6y ago
      You're missing that there are marginal trips that would be discouraged/eliminated if one had to pay for them. There can be subsidies for low income individuals if one cares about the regressive aspect (I don't). Low income individuals can use carpooling to escape per-person fees, as well.
      - Johnny555 6y ago
        If those marginal trips aren't already dissuaded by rush hour traffic, it's going to be hard to dissuade them with congestion pricing. I intentionally avoid rush hour traffic when scheduling doctors appointments, etc, but sometimes it's not always possible. And if there's focus on personal vehicles over transit, then people will have no alternative, they either drive and join the traffic on the road or don't go.
        baggy_trough 6y ago
        That would depend on the price.
        Johnny555 6y ago
        I'd like to see a source for this. If you take away transit and rely on personal car transport, there's going to be a point where there's no price that will stop the congestion. Using San Francisco as an example, the Bay Bridge carries around 250,000 cars/day, while BART's transbay tube carries around 300,000 passengers/day. If you put those BART passengers into cars, even if you build another Bay Bridge, how are all of those cars going to fit onto city streets and where are they going to park? Even if they are magic self-driving cars, that's going to double the amount of traffic on city streets (one trip to drop someone off, one to pick them up). Assuming that you don't count "not having a functional city" as an acceptable cost, if you don't provide any alternative to cars, I don't think there's any price that you can set that will stop congestion. At higher prices, you may as well just call it "travel rationing" since a price of, say, $500/trip would price commuting out the reach of almost everyone. You can certainly use congestion pricing to shift some portion of traffic or drive people to other modes of transportation, but if the only choice is driving, then congestion pricing isn't really a solution.

Johnny555 6y ago

The number of buildings in walking distance to a train station is very limited. Your case can't be generalized. The number of buildings within close commute distance of an airport is even more limited, airports are big and loud and no one wants one close to the city center. Take, for example, travel from Buckingham Palace to the Louvre, the cities are they are connected by a high speed train, but neither source or destination is within close walking distance. The total trip length by train is 3:30 including taking a train to St Pancras, Eurostar high speed rail to Gare du Nord, then a train to the Louvre. By plane, LHR to CDG is only 1:20. Paddington station to LHR is only around 15 minutes, but it'll take you 20 minutes to get to Paddington. And once you get to the airport, allow 10 - 15 minutes from the Heathrow Express train to the terminal. So you've got 50 minutes of travel time to your get. And you need to allow time for security, and to get to your gate so get there 30 minutes early. Now you're up to 1:20 just to get to your flight. Airports, being so large, are located far from downtown, so it'll take you 45 minutes by train to get from CDG to the Louvre, but add 15 minutes to get off the plane and walk to the train. So that's an hour. So you've got 1:20 + 1:20 + 1:00 = 3:40 by air. Yes. Roads can also be optimized. LA has devoted around 30% of its land area to roads, yet they still have some of the worst traffic congestion in the country, how much can roads be optimized?

baggy_trough 6y ago
Very easily! Use congestion pricing.
- Johnny555 6y ago
  When you see an "easy" solution to congestion, there are usually factors that make it not so easy - if cities rely on cars for personal transport and don't provide a transit alternative, then congestion pricing alone isn't going to help other than being a regressive tax on the people that can least afford to pay it. The $200K/year software engineer can avoid the $10 tax by working from home until 10am when the rate drops to $5. The $30K/year service worker doesn't have that option, when his workday starts at 9am, he has no choice. And you can only stretch out the commute so far with congestion pricing before the morning commute runs into the afternoon commute, already in the bay area (pre-covid), I was seeing stop and go traffic from early afternoon through 8pm or so. COVID has been a nice reprieve from the traffic, but many companies want their employees back in the office, so within a year or so, traffic levels will be back to pre-covid levels, maybe worse because many people moved farther away when they were working from home.
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    You're missing that there are marginal trips that would be discouraged/eliminated if one had to pay for them. There can be subsidies for low income individuals if one cares about the regressive aspect (I don't). Low income individuals can use carpooling to escape per-person fees, as well.
    - Johnny555 6y ago
      If those marginal trips aren't already dissuaded by rush hour traffic, it's going to be hard to dissuade them with congestion pricing. I intentionally avoid rush hour traffic when scheduling doctors appointments, etc, but sometimes it's not always possible. And if there's focus on personal vehicles over transit, then people will have no alternative, they either drive and join the traffic on the road or don't go.
      - baggy_trough 6y ago
        That would depend on the price.
        Johnny555 6y ago
        I'd like to see a source for this. If you take away transit and rely on personal car transport, there's going to be a point where there's no price that will stop the congestion. Using San Francisco as an example, the Bay Bridge carries around 250,000 cars/day, while BART's transbay tube carries around 300,000 passengers/day. If you put those BART passengers into cars, even if you build another Bay Bridge, how are all of those cars going to fit onto city streets and where are they going to park? Even if they are magic self-driving cars, that's going to double the amount of traffic on city streets (one trip to drop someone off, one to pick them up). Assuming that you don't count "not having a functional city" as an acceptable cost, if you don't provide any alternative to cars, I don't think there's any price that you can set that will stop congestion. At higher prices, you may as well just call it "travel rationing" since a price of, say, $500/trip would price commuting out the reach of almost everyone. You can certainly use congestion pricing to shift some portion of traffic or drive people to other modes of transportation, but if the only choice is driving, then congestion pricing isn't really a solution.