Attached: 1 image
Sidewalks used to be wider. It’s a fact that rarely gets acknowledged in discussions about road diets. Usually the road diet debate is framed as taking space AWAY from cars. Really it’s about giving it BACK to pedestrians. Here’s a good article about it https://tinyurl.com/2s4bzxw3
You mean supply and demand? Very aware of it. But induced demand in reference to roads only shows the idea of road expansion and more people take the road. What about alleviating congestion in another part of the city due to road expansion? What about travel time? What about travel distance?
Very little of the demand is demand to drive a car. It’s mostly demand to travel as effectively as possible.
When you build out road networks you make traveling by car more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.
When you build out transit networks you make traveling by transit more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.
When you have well designed cities, you reduce the demand for travel, period.
Higher population centers have favorable economics for transit vs. Personal vehicles. And are more impacted by pollutants.
Low population centers have favorable economics for personal vehicles vs. Transit. And are less impacted by pollutants.
That’s a description of the dynamics anyway.
I imagine vast majority of people would agree that folks that live in the densist cities need transit, and those living in a forest need a personal vehicle.
The debate occurs somewhere in between of the extremes.
Personally I’m of the opinion that we skew too far towards cars, because the true costs/externalities are harder to see, so what seems like favorable economics is actually just socializing the costs.
You mean supply and demand? Very aware of it. But induced demand in reference to roads only shows the idea of road expansion and more people take the road. What about alleviating congestion in another part of the city due to road expansion? What about travel time? What about travel distance?
Very little of the demand is demand to drive a car. It’s mostly demand to travel as effectively as possible.
When you build out road networks you make traveling by car more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.
When you build out transit networks you make traveling by transit more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.
When you have well designed cities, you reduce the demand for travel, period.
Higher population centers have favorable economics for transit vs. Personal vehicles. And are more impacted by pollutants.
Low population centers have favorable economics for personal vehicles vs. Transit. And are less impacted by pollutants.
That’s a description of the dynamics anyway.
I imagine vast majority of people would agree that folks that live in the densist cities need transit, and those living in a forest need a personal vehicle. The debate occurs somewhere in between of the extremes.
Personally I’m of the opinion that we skew too far towards cars, because the true costs/externalities are harder to see, so what seems like favorable economics is actually just socializing the costs.
If you don’t mind, I’d like to take some time to do my own research and get back to you. Is that ok?
For sure, happy to open up the conversation again later
Hey still working in time to read all the things. I haven’t forgotten about you. I got a busy life