Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The beltway model only works because cars aren't trains. With cars, you can do feeders and distributors and arteries. With trains, not so much, because the cost of switching is so high. Buses do it (also bus to subway), but a 3-seat ride (plus a walk on either end!) is still pretty bad, and more is nigh-intolerable.
There's also the issue of stopping, but that's true on any journey. If you built a train line along the capital beltway and the trains had to stop at every exit, it'd be pretty darned slow.
A lot of the beltways run pretty slow too. I suppose the planners don't even want to test the concept, but they've probably studied it to death. BTW has anyone heard of express trains? They run in NY and Chitown.
I wonder, though, how true that love will be if we drivers have to pay against that unfunded pile of infrastructure maintenance and repair costs. Sidestepping the inflammatory public vs. private debate and all the subsidy wars therein, would we still "love" our cars if they were a luxury item instead of a necessity for the average car owner?
The only ways to make them a luxury item is to build a comprehensive public transit system, or make it feasible not to be able to get around much. Just increasing the cost of driving won't do it. Of course the cost of building such a comprehensive public transit system (if it is at all feasible) is MUCH more than road maintenance, and making it feasible not to get around much requires such a change in infrastructure that it is simply infeasible.
The beltway model only works because cars aren't trains. With cars, you can do feeders and distributors and arteries. With trains, not so much, because the cost of switching is so high. Buses do it (also bus to subway), but a 3-seat ride (plus a walk on either end!) is still pretty bad, and more is nigh-intolerable.
Maryland is proposing a beltway line around DC (purple light rail).
A lot of the beltways run pretty slow too. I suppose the planners don't even want to test the concept, but they've probably studied it to death. BTW has anyone heard of express trains? They run in NY and Chitown.
The CTA generally does not run express trains as part of it's normal line up except for the purple line(and it only runs in rush). NYC has an 4 track system for much if not all of it's train system allowing true express capability. Chicago only has 4 tracks for the north side mainline that the red, brown, and purple line share. When the CTA runs express it usually is due to delay and an attempt to get the EL back on schedule.
It is not just the fact that cars can use beltways. It is the fact that the drive is direct and non-stop where as an bus is anything but for most riders.
The only ways to make them a luxury item is to build a comprehensive public transit system, or make it feasible not to be able to get around much. Just increasing the cost of driving won't do it. Of course the cost of building such a comprehensive public transit system (if it is at all feasible) is MUCH more than road maintenance, and making it feasible not to get around much requires such a change in infrastructure that it is simply infeasible.
They may become a luxury item simply as a function of the finite nature of (all, including time, money, energy, and not just natural) resources.
I'm not suggesting that they would become luxury items by government fiat. Priorities and prices change over time, and we re-allocate our lives accordingly.
We're already seeing some shifts in spending priorities among younger generations; servicing college debt has crowded out spending on other things, like new cars and homes, while mobile tech and the first wave of sharing economics has mildly, if also consistently, degraded the value of car ownership. And this is before government figures out how to deal with the aforementioned infrastructure maintenance costs; states levying per-mile registration fees or increased fuel taxes could further change the calculus.
They may become a luxury item simply as a function of the finite nature of (all, including time, money, energy, and not just natural) resources.
Cars become a luxury item when it is practical to live without them. Right now, if you live in much of the country, a car is not a luxury item, because if you don't have one, you can't get to work in a reasonable amount of time, or shop, or do other day to day activities. Before a car can be reasonably considered a luxury item, that has to change, one way or another. Relatively small increases in the cost of driving aren't going to do it.
Of course cars are already luxury items in Manhattan (and many parts of the other NYC boroughs), D.C. and other cities where jobs and day-to-day necessities are reasonable to reach via public transit.
Obviously there's some fuzziness around the nature of "practical"; in some areas public transportation exists but is so poor as to take hours for a trip which takes minutes by car; I'd still consider a car as a necessity rather than a luxury in such a place.
You should read yourselves if you ever wonder why many Americans feel urban planners hate their cars and way of life, are so hostile towards and feel threatened by "smart growth" policies, and even latch onto Agenda 21 theories. The consensus of hostility towards cars and in my view the individual autonomy they represent is striking, but that's beside the point. I posted this to note that most Americans on this forum, and the urban planning profession in general, have a perspective of cars and cities so divorced from ordinary Americans they might as well live in a different country - that's how little common ground exists. Regardless of how right or wrong that perspective is, you should be aware of how psychically different your world is from the world(s) ordinary Americans inhabit, and act accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Cars become a luxury item when it is practical to live without them. Right now, if you live in much of the country, a car is not a luxury item, because if you don't have one, you can't get to work in a reasonable amount of time, or shop, or do other day to day activities. Before a car can be reasonably considered a luxury item, that has to change, one way or another. Relatively small increases in the cost of driving aren't going to do it.
Offhand, when the cost of an item escalates people have two financial options assuming their income doesn't increase: reduce or eliminate said item, or absorb the additional cost elsewhere. If the cost of driving escalates, Americans will likely choose the latter; not only are cars a necessity, but they are a symbol of a way of life they cherish, particularly in an era of national stress like today. If the extra cost is imposed by government (likely as an unpopular policy) the second choice becomes even more likely. People's views can change and nullify all this, but my prediction is valid as long as Americans' cars/cities worldview resembles today's. Indeed, I believe people are already absorbing increased driving costs, considering how auto-related consumption has grown as incomes have shrunk in the 2010's to date.
Cars become a luxury item when it is practical to live without them. Right now, if you live in much of the country, a car is not a luxury item, because if you don't have one, you can't get to work in a reasonable amount of time, or shop, or do other day to day activities. Before a car can be reasonably considered a luxury item, that has to change, one way or another. Relatively small increases in the cost of driving aren't going to do it.
Of course cars are already luxury items in Manhattan (and many parts of the other NYC boroughs), D.C. and other cities where jobs and day-to-day necessities are reasonable to reach via public transit.
Obviously there's some fuzziness around the nature of "practical"; in some areas public transportation exists but is so poor as to take hours for a trip which takes minutes by car; I'd still consider a car as a necessity rather than a luxury in such a place.
I disagree. From your perspective, cars are essential. From mine, cars are highly valuable, but hold a central place in our lives because we haven't had compelling economic incentives to change. Cars were becoming luxury items when gas was running toward $5/gallon. And cars were become luxury-like for many people during the Great Recession. People were looking at smaller cars, more efficient cars, bicycles, and fewer trips. And the millennial generation is financially pressed--low incomes from below, high debts from above--at the same time as technology--mobile devices and sharing services--is dulling the shine of car ownership.
As the value equation shifts, people make different decisions. And the equation has been slowly shifting for a long time.
It's not that cars would suddenly become a luxury item, but that cars may, over time, become less central to the average person's life. It's not the people will en mass give up their cars, but that people may make fewer marginal trips, or put off buying a new car, or buy a bicycle, or move to where cars are slightly less important, etc. In the end, it may be lots of people making lots of very incremental choices.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
