Happy 137th Birthday, Mr. Automobile

[Principled Man]

The Benz Patent-Motorwagen:  The first practical modern automobile, unveiled in Mannheim in 1886! 

 

Did Karl Benz know that his invention would ultimately drive the world crazy?      

 

 

 

[Nova Carmina]

A decidedly mixed blessing.

[Principled Man]

1 hour ago, Nova Carmina said:

A decidedly mixed blessing.

 

 

One of the best examples of technology being a double-edged sword. 

[IbanezJem]

137 and you haven`t changed a bit. 

[grep]

Damn, he old AF.

[laughedatbytime]

One of the, if not the main reason our standard of living is unimaginably high compared to the days before it was invented.

[BastillePark]

3 hours ago, Principled Man said:

 

 

One of the best examples of technology being a double-edged sword. 

One of the most obvious examples is the technology that allows us to do this. Sure it's great to be able to access more information than we'll ever use but it also allows the Q-Anons, flat earthers, and other examples of human idiocy to communicate with those that have similar defects in judgement and logic.

[That One Guy]

6 hours ago, Nova Carmina said:

A decidedly mixed blessing.

Indeed. Many tens of millions of lives have been directly lost to automobile fatalities since its invention.

 

I'm a car guy... but I'm also a bigger fan of trains. Trains have probably done more good for the world than cars, while also doing less harm.

Edited July 3, 2023 by That One Guy

[Principled Man]

46 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

Indeed. Many tens of millions of lives have been directly lost to automobile fatalities since its invention.

 

I'm a car guy... but I'm also a bigger fan of trains. Trains have probably done more good for the world than cars, while also doing less harm.

 

If our society ever truly commits to a new & improved passenger rail system throughout this country, I will jump for joy....assuming that I'm not on my death bed at the time.....

[Principled Man]

2 hours ago, BastillePark said:

One of the most obvious examples is the technology that allows us to do this. Sure it's great to be able to access more information than we'll ever use but it also allows the Q-Anons, flat earthers, and other examples of human idiocy to communicate with those that have similar defects in judgement and logic.

 

What I Would Never Call A Good Idea, #423: 

 

Giving a 24/7 open microphone or stage to everyone on Earth.  

[laughedatbytime]

49 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

Indeed. Many tens of millions of lives have been directly lost to automobile fatalities since its invention.

 

I'm a car guy... but I'm also a bigger fan of trains. Trains have probably done more good for the world than cars, while also doing less harm.

Tens of millions?  I'd be curious as to where you got that statistic.

[That One Guy]

46 minutes ago, laughedatbytime said:

Tens of millions?  I'd be curious as to where you got that statistic.

An offhand, correct, and conservative number I threw out. As you know, I'm a civil engineer, and on SOCN I have talked about roadway deaths several times in your presence. I already knew off the top of my head that in excess of 1,000,000 people die on roads every year, globally. 20 years of that gets you 20M, "tens of millions", without even going farther! But we can certainly go farther.

 

https://extranet.who.int/roadsafety/death-on-the-roads/#trends

 

 

Here's a graph showing 2000-2016. As of 2022, it still is about 1.3M, so increases in driving are outweighing advancements in car safety/driver education as far as per-capita deaths are concerned. I haven't been able to find global car death data pre-2000, but it's safe to say much (maybe most?) of the world was driving and dying before then, even if countries like India/China had far less personal vehicles in the 20th century. NA/Europe and others have been driving for a very long time. Holding the 2016 number on this graph steady to 2022 and taking a conservative average, you get at least 26M deaths in this century alone. I bet the 20th century can manage at least another 10M, logically guesstimating. I'll put my revised worldwide estimate at "in excess of 36,000,000 worldwide car deaths". Maybe it's at 40 or 50, but it doesn't appear anybody has semi-accurately attempted to calculate it on the internets.

 

Homing in on the US, it is estimated that 3.7M people in the U.S. alone have died in car crashes since 1899. Per capita rates here have drastically trended down in all but the most recent decade, despite increasing vehicular travel speeds, which is a testament to decades of automotive safety engineering. Hearing that someone you knew just died in a car crash on the way home used to be a lot less uncommon and shocking than it currently is. Statistically, in the United States per mile traveled you were 20 times more likely to die in a car crash one hundred years ago than you are today.

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by That One Guy

[Nova Carmina]

32 minutes ago, laughedatbytime said:

Tens of millions?  I'd be curious as to where you got that statistic.

 

The World Health Organization says about 1.3 million people die around the world every year from car accidents. You wouldn't have to go back too far to get to "tens of millions."

 

There are some complications -- as the number of cars and drivers has risen, cars have actually gotten safer, so the 1.3 million would not be stable, but because cars have been around for 137 years, we've had a lot of time to rack up a high body count.

 

And, if I'm reading the article correctly, that's just accidents, so not including exhaust pollution as a significant contributing factor to some other deaths. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/auto-accident/car-accident-deaths/

[That One Guy]

13 minutes ago, Nova Carmina said:

 

The World Health Organization says about 1.3 million people die around the world every year from car accidents. You wouldn't have to go back too far to get to "tens of millions."

 

There are some complications -- as the number of cars and drivers has risen, cars have actually gotten safer, so the 1.3 million would not be stable, but because cars have been around for 137 years, we've had a lot of time to rack up a high body count.

 

And, if I'm reading the article correctly, that's just accidents, so not including exhaust pollution as a significant contributing factor to some other deaths. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/auto-accident/car-accident-deaths/

That's a good point, and one that's hard to quantify, especially globally. Even if it's not lives directly lost in an instant, how many human-years have been lost to lives getting ended early by prolonged exposure to vehicle exhausts?

 

Vehicles are costly on many fronts. Pedestrian/cyclist deaths have been trended up in the United States the last several years, largely thanks to the perverse proliferation of massive trucks and truck-based SUVs. You're more than twice as likely to die at the same speed to a truck hitting you in a crosswalk than a standard sedan/hatchback. I am hopeful we will meaningfully reverse godawful trends like this. There's a lot that goes into it. It's complicated.

 

There's also the case of aggressive driving resulting in deaths, which I consider murder. I try not to use the phrase "car accident", I don't want to imply "honest accidents" that can't be avoided. I use collision or crash. Drivers who kill others through their aggressive driving seldom get serious time behind bars. A dude speeding 90 through rural farmfields in Utah killed two playing children when he crashed into them. He will probably be out within 10-15 years. I don't think you'd get off that easy if you walked onto a playground and killed two children in a different way. Even when it's a DUI crash, I don't see much in the way of 10+ years served from those that killed others with their car. "If you want to get away with killing people with the lowest penalties in the US... just do it behind the wheel."

Edited July 4, 2023 by That One Guy

[That One Guy]

1 hour ago, Principled Man said:

 

If our society ever truly commits to a new & improved passenger rail system throughout this country, I will jump for joy....assuming that I'm not on my death bed at the time.....

The east coast is taking itty bitty lil baby steps with "high speed rail", new Amtrak trains and rail upgrades over the next several years that will still be much slower than current European HSR trains.

 

California has taken the most aggressive step, building out a brand new HSR line mostly on their own, financially. Even though the first opened segment of line won't be connecting the most major of cities in the area... I will go there and I will ride that train in a show of support the year the first segment opens. It's the way forward, it's just hard for the US to get its act together when the Fed is used to giving unlimited financial support to highway widenings/upkeep and airport upgrades.... but criticizing/rejecting good rail upgrades when proposed. The US will feel the negative economic impacts, severely, if it tries to stay extremely car dependent for another few decades.

Edited July 4, 2023 by That One Guy

[That One Guy]

I am critical of the problems cars can cause, and I am a vocal industry professional trying to do my part to improve my regional transportation network, which will involve lessening car dependent networks and providing more varied, cheaper, and safer transportation options. That said, I am still a car guy, and I will probably never stop being a car guy. Public transit is never going to take me offroading 12,000ft mountain passes in Colorado, or sliding the back end around in a sports car on great canyon switchbacks... You can love cars while wanting to reign them in where they don't make sense.

 

[laughedatbytime]

23 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

That's a good point, and one that's hard to quantify, especially globally. Even if it's not lives directly lost in an instant, how many human-years have been lost to lives getting ended early by prolonged exposure to vehicle exhausts?

 

Vehicles are costly on many fronts. Pedestrian/cyclist deaths have been trended up in the United States the last several years, largely thanks to the perverse proliferation of massive trucks and truck-based SUVs. You're more than twice as likely to die at the same speed to a truck hitting you in a crosswalk than a standard sedan/hatchback. I am hopeful we will meaningfully reverse godawful trends like this. There's a lot that goes into it. It's complicated.

 

There's also the case of aggressive driving resulting in deaths, which I consider murder. I try not to use the phrase "car accident", I don't want to imply "honest accidents" that can't be avoided. I use collision or crash. Drivers who kill others through their aggressive driving seldom get serious time behind bars. A dude speeding 90 through rural farmfields in Utah killed two playing children when he crashed into them. He will probably be out within 10-15 years. I don't think you'd get off that easy if you walked onto a playground and killed two children in a different way. "If you want to get away with killing people with the lowest penalties in the US... just do it behind the wheel."

And how many lives have been saved by the speedy point to point transportation that only cars and various similar other vehicles (such as ambulances) can provide?  I don't know if this is discoverable, but I'd be willing to bet it's many, many times more.     I haven't heard any cases of shootings in downtown Minneapolis where light rail was used to transport the victim(s) to the hospital.

 

I can't imagine a world where the car didn't exist and wasn't true primary method of transportation of people and goods.   Thankfully, I don't have to.  And that doesn't even touch on the higher quality of life that's achievable primarily because of the automobile.

 

 

 

 

 

[laughedatbytime]

30 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

The east coast is taking itty bitty lil baby steps with "high speed rail", new Amtrak trains and rail upgrades over the next several years that will still be much slower than current European HSR trains.

 

California has taken the most aggressive step, building out a brand new HSR line mostly on their own, financially. Even though the first opened segment of line won't be connecting the most major of cities in the area... I will go there and I will ride that train in a show of support the year the first segment opens. It's the way forward, it's just hard for the US to get its act together when the Fed is used to giving unlimited financial support to highway widenings/upkeep and airport upgrades.... but criticizing/rejecting good rail upgrades when proposed. The US will feel the negative economic impacts, severely, if it tries to stay extremely car dependent for another few decades.

Let us know which town is the best for sightseeing, Glendora or Pomona.

[JohnRogers]

 

 

My first.

Edited July 4, 2023 by JohnRogers

[JohnRogers]

14 hours ago, That One Guy said:

The east coast is taking itty bitty lil baby steps with "high speed rail", new Amtrak trains and rail upgrades over the next several years that will still be much slower than current European HSR trains.

 

California has taken the most aggressive step, building out a brand new HSR line mostly on their own, financially. Even though the first opened segment of line won't be connecting the most major of cities in the area... I will go there and I will ride that train in a show of support the year the first segment opens. It's the way forward, it's just hard for the US to get its act together when the Fed is used to giving unlimited financial support to highway widenings/upkeep and airport upgrades.... but criticizing/rejecting good rail upgrades when proposed. The US will feel the negative economic impacts, severely, if it tries to stay extremely car dependent for another few decades.

I recently used Amtrak to go from New Orleans to NYC. Never mind the car I needed to rent to get to NO from Victoria, TX, sure there was technically a very inconvenient bus option.  One train per day and expensive. I love trains, especially the NYC subway. Car and plane will get you where you want when you want. Right now in most of the country train can't do that and I don't fault Americans for not choosing rail.

[That One Guy]

2 hours ago, JohnRogers said:

I recently used Amtrak to go from New Orleans to NYC. Never mind the car I needed to rent to get to NO from Victoria, TX, sure there was technically a very inconvenient bus option.  One train per day and expensive. I love trains, especially the NYC subway. Car and plane will get you where you want when you want. Right now in most of the country train can't do that and I don't fault Americans for not choosing rail.

I agree, it’s a policy failure, not a personal failure on an individuals part. Letting Americas rail go from best in the world to far from it over the last 80 years was not a good move. I wouldn’t choose personal car to get across Manhattan, and I wouldn’t choose currently inconvenient rail to get from Kentucky to Nebraska. You choose based on what’s available, and “car” is the only compelling option at the moment in many US places. Air fails in plenty of smaller areas, we aren’t flying CRJ900’s into every corner of the country, and it’s incredibly expensive in some of the fringe places that we do. A well designed and financed rail system tends to drastically trump air for medium distances up to about 600 miles, for comfort and lack of advance security time needed. Nobody shows up two hours early for a train, and disembarking is quick. I took a train to Toronto and was walking downtown within five minutes of the train stopping.  
 

We’re planning on going to France, Switzerland, and Italy next year. The plan is all trains and boats, except for renting a car in Switzerland. 

Edited July 4, 2023 by That One Guy

[JohnRogers]

35 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

I agree, it’s a policy failure, not a personal failure on an individuals part. Letting Americas rail go from best in the world to far from it over the last 80 years was not a good move. I wouldn’t choose personal car to get across Manhattan, and I wouldn’t choose currently inconvenient rail to get from Kentucky to Nebraska. You choose based on what’s available, and “car” is the only compelling option at the moment in many US places. Air fails in plenty of smaller areas, we aren’t flying CRJ900’s into every corner of the country, and it’s incredibly expensive in some of the fringe places that we do. A well designed and financed rail system tends to drastically trump air for medium distances up to about 600 miles, for comfort and lack of advance security time needed. Nobody shows up two hours early for a train, and disembarking is quick. I took a train to Toronto and was walking downtown within five minutes of the train stopping.  
 

We’re planning on going to France, Switzerland, and Italy next year. The plan is all trains and boats, except for renting a car in Switzerland. 

Yeah, we're really probably on the same page here. I lament the loss of rail when I see ornate city train terminals in decline, when I'm watching old movies, Silver Streak was shot as rail was ending. Still, it's not all doom and gloom. Commuter rail the NYC metropolitan area which includes large swaths of NJ and CT is dare I say thriving. The problem in Manhattan is when the city demands people get back on the subway while doing almost nothing about the violent homeless. Make the subway clean and safe people will return.

 

I rarely consider air for a drive I can do in ten hours or less.

 

I got people in England, I envy their stories of traveling Europe by rail.

 

Federal government spending as a solution? Fine as long as cars aren't being penalized, they're coming for our cars, you get my Camry when you pry it from my cold dead hands. I know you're a fan, I found CA HSR laughable as I drove past large disconnected sections waiting for completion. Offer the people protections from huge cost overruns and long delays in project completion then I'm aboard. Maybe even LABT might support cross-country rail. You're a smart guy, not sarcasm, Pete Buttigieg comes to you wanting a plan in a binder, what is the solution?

[That One Guy]

29 minutes ago, JohnRogers said:

Yeah, we're really probably on the same page here. I lament the loss of rail when I see ornate city train terminals in decline, when I'm watching old movies, Silver Streak was shot as rail was ending. Still, it's not all doom and gloom. Commuter rail the NYC metropolitan area which includes large swaths of NJ and CT is dare I say thriving. The problem in Manhattan is when the city demands people get back on the subway while doing almost nothing about the violent homeless. Make the subway clean and safe people will return.

 

I rarely consider air for a drive I can do in ten hours or less.

 

I got people in England, I envy their stories of traveling Europe by rail.

 

Federal government spending as a solution? Fine as long as cars aren't being penalized, they're coming for our cars, you get my Camry when you pry it from my cold dead hands. I know you're a fan, I found CA HSR laughable as I drove past large disconnected sections waiting for completion. Offer the people protections from huge cost overruns and long delays in project completion then I'm aboard. Maybe even LABT might support cross-country rail. You're a smart guy, not sarcasm, Pete Buttigieg comes to you wanting a plan in a binder, what is the solution?

The bold is sadly fairly unrealistic when it comes to transportation projects in general. Big investments in public transportation infrastructure often have big overruns and missed target dates, it is practically the nature of the game. Rail, of course, should not arbitrarily be held to a higher standard than highways and airports when it comes to this stuff. California HSR is having and will continue to have big cost overruns. Things like The Big Dig out east absolutely annihilated gargantuan swaths of money, much more than anticipated (especially for what it ultimately provided). The thing about big infrastructure improvements is that once they're built, and the societal gains get realized (note that it is not the purpose of public infrastructure to turn a direct net profit), the costs get rightfully forgotten. This stuff is expensive, but it's some of the highest returns on investment a society can give itself. Once upon a time, Europe dumped "infinity dollars" into modernizing their rail. They now get to enjoy all the benefits that investment provided on a constant basis. Japan did the same. China is doing and has done the same, and it will be a factor in their economy eclipsing ours moving forward.

 

If we can throw disgustingly blank checks into keeping millions of miles of roadways in acceptable condition, and spend quite considerable amounts of money on airport upgrades and maintenance, we can allocate a healthy amount of money into modernizing rail on the medium and high traffic routes.

 

I agree, I don't fly unless schedule is really tight or distances are very long. We drove to Calgary and Banff last year. The flight was some money saved, using our own vehicle saved big on a rental car too.

 

And it does sound like it's time for New York and other places to get a "clean up the crime" mayor again. Easing criminal penalties likely induces more crime, I'm not a fan in most cases.

 

I am a proponent of things that probably get thought of as "penalizing cars" by some. Rob Ford I am not. Cars do not have an unalienable right to a certain amount of convenience, or a certain number of lanes, or a certain commute time, or a certain number of free urban parking spots. Anytime I see a "road diet" happen, I'm just super happy. Salt Lake City has done a stellar job of shrinking road widths and using the space for 12' wide multi-use trails. Those trails are being constantly used already, it's awesome.

 

Anyone who has turned their brain on knows that lessening car dependent design does not mean removing all roads. It's not a game of absolutes. Small towns and big cities alike will always need accessways for emergency vehicles, taxis, public services, contractors, food and item delivery trucks, occasional personal cars, you name it. But building 6-lane wide roads everywhere in a way that makes it virtually the ONLY way to move people and goods in an area is what's considered "shit design" these days.

Edited July 4, 2023 by That One Guy

[laughedatbytime]

3 hours ago, That One Guy said:

The bold is sadly fairly unrealistic when it comes to transportation projects in general. Big investments in public transportation infrastructure often have big overruns and missed target dates, it is practically the nature of the game. Rail, of course, should not arbitrarily be held to a higher standard than highways and airports when it comes to this stuff. California HSR is having and will continue to have big cost overruns. Things like The Big Dig out east absolutely annihilated gargantuan swaths of money, much more than anticipated (especially for what it ultimately provided). The thing about big infrastructure improvements is that once they're built, and the societal gains get realized (note that it is not the purpose of public infrastructure to turn a direct net profit), the costs get rightfully forgotten. This stuff is expensive, but it's some of the highest returns on investment a society can give itself. Once upon a time, Europe dumped "infinity dollars" into modernizing their rail. They now get to enjoy all the benefits that investment provided on a constant basis. Japan did the same. China is doing and has done the same, and it will be a factor in their economy eclipsing ours moving forward.

 

If we can throw disgustingly blank checks into keeping millions of miles of roadways in acceptable condition, and spend quite considerable amounts of money on airport upgrades and maintenance, we can allocate a healthy amount of money into modernizing rail on the medium and high traffic routes.

 

I agree, I don't fly unless schedule is really tight or distances are very long. We drove to Calgary and Banff last year. The flight was some money saved, using our own vehicle saved big on a rental car too.

 

And it does sound like it's time for New York and other places to get a "clean up the crime" mayor again. Easing criminal penalties likely induces more crime, I'm not a fan in most cases.

 

I am a proponent of things that probably get thought of as "penalizing cars" by some. Rob Ford I am not. Cars do not have an unalienable right to a certain amount of convenience, or a certain number of lanes, or a certain commute time, or a certain number of free urban parking spots. Anytime I see a "road diet" happen, I'm just super happy. Salt Lake City has done a stellar job of shrinking road widths and using the space for 12' wide multi-use trails. Those trails are being constantly used already, it's awesome.

 

Anyone who has turned their brain on knows that lessening car dependent design does not mean removing all roads. It's not a game of absolutes. Small towns and big cities alike will always need accessways for emergency vehicles, taxis, public services, contractors, food and item delivery trucks, occasional personal cars, you name it. But building 6-lane wide roads everywhere in a way that makes it virtually the ONLY way to move people and goods in an area is what's considered "shit design" these days.

I only have the Minneapolis experience to go on but congestion charges were not really easing traffic jams before the pandemic; they were rarely used even when congestion was severe.   After the pandemic they're almost never used.  (One good thing about the pandemic is the ability of many people to work from home so congestion has become rare and mainly related to massive events.)

 

There are plenty of bike lanes in downtown Minneapolis (which always finishes at or close to the top of bike friendly cities in the surveys I've seen) taking up road space when they could have added a lane and they're virtually never used.   They're not even viable during the 35-40% of the year when it's winter.

 

But worst of all is the light rail, which is deeply subsidized (for those few who actually bother to pay).  Part of the issue is that city planners in liberal cities worry about issues they feel are related to "quality of life" but since they live in echo chambers actively work against public transportation actually being safe for most riders...there are rampant crime problems and most people don't feel safe most of the time, especially after George Floyd.  There are so many stops for both the lines that go from the airport to downtown Minneapolis and from downtown Minneapolis to downtown St Paul that it takes 30 minutes to get there, which is at least (in good weather) twice as long as it would take to drive.  (Most business people would take a cab to save time.) In bad weather they might pay off if they remain operable.

 

Finally, there is a local light rail boondoggle on a much smaller scale here for light rail to the southwest suburbs.   Leaving aside for a minute that Sec. Buttigieg would, if he didn't prefer the method of transportation being discussed probably, call the project racist, it has been delayed a decade at multiple times the cost, and this is about a less than 15 mile stretch of track.   It's not just the California project that has cost way more than expected and produced virtually nothing.   Expecting it to be cost effective next time is about as likely as Trump exhibiting humility.

 

https://www.mprnews.org/episode/2023/06/28/state-auditors-release-the-third-of-four-reports-on-the-southwest-light-rail-transit-project

[JohnRogers]

17 hours ago, That One Guy said:

The bold is sadly fairly unrealistic when it comes to transportation projects in general. Big investments in public transportation infrastructure often have big overruns and missed target dates, it is practically the nature of the game. Rail, of course, should not arbitrarily be held to a higher standard than highways and airports when it comes to this stuff. California HSR is having and will continue to have big cost overruns. Things like The Big Dig out east absolutely annihilated gargantuan swaths of money, much more than anticipated (especially for what it ultimately provided). The thing about big infrastructure improvements is that once they're built, and the societal gains get realized (note that it is not the purpose of public infrastructure to turn a direct net profit), the costs get rightfully forgotten. This stuff is expensive, but it's some of the highest returns on investment a society can give itself. Once upon a time, Europe dumped "infinity dollars" into modernizing their rail. They now get to enjoy all the benefits that investment provided on a constant basis. Japan did the same. China is doing and has done the same, and it will be a factor in their economy eclipsing ours moving forward.

 

If we can throw disgustingly blank checks into keeping millions of miles of roadways in acceptable condition, and spend quite considerable amounts of money on airport upgrades and maintenance, we can allocate a healthy amount of money into modernizing rail on the medium and high traffic routes.

 

I agree, I don't fly unless schedule is really tight or distances are very long. We drove to Calgary and Banff last year. The flight was some money saved, using our own vehicle saved big on a rental car too.

 

And it does sound like it's time for New York and other places to get a "clean up the crime" mayor again. Easing criminal penalties likely induces more crime, I'm not a fan in most cases.

 

I am a proponent of things that probably get thought of as "penalizing cars" by some. Rob Ford I am not. Cars do not have an unalienable right to a certain amount of convenience, or a certain number of lanes, or a certain commute time, or a certain number of free urban parking spots. Anytime I see a "road diet" happen, I'm just super happy. Salt Lake City has done a stellar job of shrinking road widths and using the space for 12' wide multi-use trails. Those trails are being constantly used already, it's awesome.

 

Anyone who has turned their brain on knows that lessening car dependent design does not mean removing all roads. It's not a game of absolutes. Small towns and big cities alike will always need accessways for emergency vehicles, taxis, public services, contractors, food and item delivery trucks, occasional personal cars, you name it. But building 6-lane wide roads everywhere in a way that makes it virtually the ONLY way to move people and goods in an area is what's considered "shit design" these days.

I don't accept that HUGE cost overruns and delays can't be managed. I wasn't @Rick N. Backer playing Cowboys and Indians at the job site but as a child I remember almost monthly news on the Big Dig. It is an example of the type of HUGE cost overrun that shouldn't happen again. One of the greatest failures of Trump was he never reformed infrastructure.  

13 hours ago, laughedatbytime said:

I only have the Minneapolis experience to go on but congestion charges were not really easing traffic jams before the pandemic; they were rarely used even when congestion was severe.   After the pandemic they're almost never used.  (One good thing about the pandemic is the ability of many people to work from home so congestion has become rare and mainly related to massive events.)

 

There are plenty of bike lanes in downtown Minneapolis (which always finishes at or close to the top of bike friendly cities in the surveys I've seen) taking up road space when they could have added a lane and they're virtually never used.   They're not even viable during the 35-40% of the year when it's winter.

 

But worst of all is the light rail, which is deeply subsidized (for those few who actually bother to pay).  Part of the issue is that city planners in liberal cities worry about issues they feel are related to "quality of life" but since they live in echo chambers actively work against public transportation actually being safe for most riders...there are rampant crime problems and most people don't feel safe most of the time, especially after George Floyd.  There are so many stops for both the lines that go from the airport to downtown Minneapolis and from downtown Minneapolis to downtown St Paul that it takes 30 minutes to get there, which is at least (in good weather) twice as long as it would take to drive.  (Most business people would take a cab to save time.) In bad weather they might pay off if they remain operable.

 

Finally, there is a local light rail boondoggle on a much smaller scale here for light rail to the southwest suburbs.   Leaving aside for a minute that Sec. Buttigieg would, if he didn't prefer the method of transportation being discussed probably, call the project racist, it has been delayed a decade at multiple times the cost, and this is about a less than 15 mile stretch of track.   It's not just the California project that has cost way more than expected and produced virtually nothing.   Expecting it to be cost effective next time is about as likely as Trump exhibiting humility.

 

https://www.mprnews.org/episode/2023/06/28/state-auditors-release-the-third-of-four-reports-on-the-southwest-light-rail-transit-project

What angers me most about NYC is the push to punish drivers with congestion pricing to fund the Subway/MTA. Ridership is still down over 45% and fare beaters are ignored while violence on the system is rampant. I want to use the subway. If you're going to charge me with congestion pricing to force me on the subway making the system clean and safe needs to be a major part of the bargain.