You're halfway there on the complexity of integrating such a system into American roadways: the sheer physical length of the average American commute. The other half of the problem is that most commutes never even reach downtown -- we drive mostly from suburb-to-suburb, now. Without a distinct nexus, mechanisms for controlling transportation can't help but be inefficient.

It's easy enough, too, to lament a lack of public transportation, as Yahmdallah does, but establishing effective transit routes within the land-use framework we've created (and that we uphold at every turn) is near impossible. Even a somewhat successful interurban system, like BART in the SF Bay Area, can't help but follow the freeways and the development they've allowed to occur. More embarassing is the fact that suburban stations require massive parking lots or expensive parking structures (the cost of building a garage runs upwards of $10,000 per space, and patrons balk mightly at the idea of having to pay for parking) in order to attract suburban riders. Given that these riders already have a means of transportation, they are choosing the train only as means of avoiding congestion. Which means that if the freeways worked, the trains would be useless.

And as much as charlie b. laments the socialist overtones of automobile-control transportation policies, government agencies (notably the FHA) did much to encourage the land-use patterns we come to take for granted, that mire us in traffic and put transit unsuitably far from out homes. Planning policies also encourage the perpetuation of this pattern far more than they try to fight it. Just try building an apartment building without parking. Even in downtown Berkeley, a single block from a BART station, the zoning board wouldn't have it. Throughout Los Angeles the unmitigated standard is 2 parking spaces per unit. As to mixing uses within buildings (say, retail below apartments), it's becoming a bit easier in lots of places, but is still very much zoning taboo.

Cars are more or less requisite in the world of "Edge Cities" (as Joel Garreau defined), and would likely be nearly efficient if:

1. There was a reduction in single-driver trips. Carpool lanes are very unpopular, though, and many people find the experience of carpooling unpleasant. In places where "casual carpooling" has arisen, most research indicates that such a practice merely takes passengers away from public transit. But, well, who cares? In third-world countries there's an exciting world of private transit at work, with individually owned jitneys running regular routes and making regular stops (more or less, there's thrilling possibilities for flexibility, here).

2. The costs of driving were fully paid for, which means toll highways, expensive parking, etc. A whole mess of very, very unpopular measures that are difficult to implement.

The most politically popular transportation measures are typically highway-widenings, whose new lanes are quickly overwhelmed by the additional drivers they attract.

Sigh. It's a dreary little stasis.

Incidentally, the technology that would allow "cars to drive themselves" is more or less in place and more or less very inexpensive. Such technology would allow for up to six-fold increase in current highway capacity, robot cars in close ranks. But where do they go? Into what parking? The real roadblock, as it were, isn't that practical problem but rather an issue of liability. Who is responsible for actions of a self-guided automobile? Who pays the insurance? No car manufacturer really wants to touch that one.

Posted by: Buttercup on April 23, 2003 05:09 AM

There are indeed major differences between the USA and the UK. I certainly don't question the way in which post-War suburban planners and their political bosses in the US created spatial patterns that implemented all sorts of social agendas - the most famous case being Robert Moses of New York. I guess part of the point of my post (apart from the pleasure of denouncing British local government officers which I do whenever the opportunity arises) was to suggest that the supposed benefits of European systems (which often make them attractive in the USA) are frequently overstated and the dismal consequences concealed. The old game of statistical distortion is particularly prevalent. It is inadvisable to believe any claim made for a particular system or planning strategy in Britain without the deepest investigation and examination of the vested interests (whether ideoligical, bureaucratic, financial or whatever) involved. I have done so on several occasions and the level of sheer mendacity was extraordinary. [And our new planning laws PROHIBIT extra parking spaces in new developments, supposedly to discourage peoiple from owning cars -- in fact, of course, residents just park all over the pavements (sidewalks) -- how do these planners come up with such clever ideas?]

Posted by: charlie b. on April 23, 2003 12:04 PM

Thanks for jumping in there, Buttercup. I thought I was going to have to wade in here and say something meaningful, which usually requires a daunting amount of work. Now I can just mention that I think my system would constitute a sort of gradualist first step towards pricing inefficient road use out of the game. Would it solve all the problems? No. But it would be a start.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on April 23, 2003 12:05 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?