It's clear from these maps that Americans prefer cars over trains, if big government would stop telling them how to live their lives. Just let the free market do it's thing!

by Thayer-D on Jul 10, 2012 10:19 am • link • report

As either sarcasm or rhetoric, that comment makes no sense.

by Andrew on Jul 10, 2012 10:28 am • link • report

Andrew, he means that the map shows Americans love for cars, but that the government took taxes to make metro instead. It makes sense, but that doesn't mean he's right.

by Petrus on Jul 10, 2012 10:31 am • link • report

This is probably unpopular, but it'd be really nice to see the Center Leg extended a bit beneath NY Ave, to emerge just east of the train tracks. It'd really help that part of town out.

Also, I don't understand why the Barney Circle Freeway was massively unpopular, while the new 11th Street bridges are palatable. There's plenty to dislike about that project, and it doesn't look like we're going to effectively reclaim the stub of the freeway between 11th St and Barney Circle. Current construction progress clearly shows that the new "Southwest Boulevard" will continue to be a grade-separated trench built to interstate standards.

by andrew on Jul 10, 2012 10:31 am • link • report

While it is true that Americans like cars over trains, the government has nothing to do with it, we've favored the former over the later since automobiles were introduced, which predated "big government" by about 30 years.

by Michael on Jul 10, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

Metro wasn't a private investment. It was your tax dollars at work. (and I'd say doing good work getting cars off the road, clearing it for you to sit on the "freeway".)

by Petrus on Jul 10, 2012 10:35 am • link • report

This plan is mostly saying - bulldoze the trees, it's prime real estate for a highway. Clearly before the times of environmental impact studies...

by Matt Glazewski on Jul 10, 2012 10:41 am • link • report

Only most of the razing and 'dozing was to buildings. It was an age of eugenics, when the "undesirable" people could simply be pushed out of the way...

by Petrus on Jul 10, 2012 10:45 am • link • report

I've hosted a reoriented version of the map on my website:

http://www.houseguydc.com/images/50sDC.jpg

by Michael on Jul 10, 2012 10:47 am • link • report

A freeway along Florida Avenue and U Street (and other places) would have been awful.

However, better connections between Nebraska/Arizona Avenues, Chain Bridge and Glebe Road (not shown on these maps) and between Eastern Avenue NE and Texas Avenue SE would have been nice to have.

by Frank IBC on Jul 10, 2012 10:53 am • link • report

Of course Americans love cars, they also like french fries, as I do. I was making fun of the idea that highways are the free market at work while trains are the hand of big government. The whole sale switch from passenger trains and streetcars to the automobile was the work of the government doing big businesses dirty work. Ironically, it was Ike, the "father of freeways" that warned of the military-industrial complex, which in this case could be named the government-big business complex. I think there's a word for that.

by Thayer-D on Jul 10, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

Some of these plans are truly crazy, but on the other hand, I'm not sure people would really have a problem if US 1 were turned into a highway.

by JustMe on Jul 10, 2012 10:59 am • link • report

Correction - the proposed link between Nebraska Avenue and Glebe Road, via a new bridge across the Potomac is shown in the larger version of the first map.

Unfortunately that alignment runs right through Battery Kemble Park and the bridge is at Fletchers Cove.

Counting down to when You-Know-Who shows up...

by Frank IBC on Jul 10, 2012 11:01 am • link • report

I enjoy Arbibold/Glover park but having that as a freeway or scenic highway makes a lot of sense. The three sisters bridge would also have been a good idea.

HIghway fantasy maps of the 1950s look as scary as subway fantasy maps....a fetish for a particular mode of tranportation rather than figuring out how to move people around better.

by charlie on Jul 10, 2012 11:11 am • link • report

@Frank IBC

"You-Know-Who" is right. I once mentioned his name and linked to one of his blog posts on a completely unrelated message board. Within hours he had a post up citing it and accusing me of being a Jesuit. Clearly he has made use of the Taboo curse. That, or he has some really high-frequency Google Alerts out on himself.

by Dizzy on Jul 10, 2012 11:23 am • link • report

I agree with andrew about burrowing an I-395 extension under New York Ave for 3 or 4 blocks. It could allow at least the part of New York Ave that's in NW to become safe for walkers and bikers, by separating out the local traffic from the cars trying to connect among the various arterials and highways.

by Tom Veil on Jul 10, 2012 11:24 am • link • report

Roads are incredibly subsidized by tax dollars, as is general suburban living... that's not the "free market".

People (and especially younger people) are choosing increasingly to live in urban centers with walkable communities. Capital BikeShare turned an operating profit in less than a year. Young people are buying less cars - they don't want to live in their vehicles three hours a day. The suburbs are getting older and poorer. Bottom line: the city is alive and growing, and thank goodness they didn't bulldoze half of it to succumb to car culture like they did in LA and other places that generally suck.

by Michael Murphy on Jul 10, 2012 11:27 am • link • report

They may have been completely wrong on transportation and housing policy, but damn they were right on with those fonts. Beautiful design work.

by TM on Jul 10, 2012 11:38 am • link • report

The proposal to make 34th Street between M Street and Wisconsin Avenue a thoroughfare, presumably as an alternative to Wisconsin Avenue, is interesting (ignoring the destruction that this would have caused). But wouldn't the first block, between M and Prospect Streets, have been unacceptably steep?

Michael Murphy - even Los Angeles only built a fraction of the freeways that were originally proposed. The only large city that built nearly all of its proposed freeways was...

Detroit.

by Frank IBC on Jul 10, 2012 11:43 am • link • report

I can't help wishing that the Fort Circle Drive had been built when it was first proposed. If it were built like Rock Creek Parkeway or the GW Parkway (not a freeway), it would have had a profound impact on the development of the eastern part of the District; it might even have knit the city together better. Far too late now of course.

by NativeSon on Jul 10, 2012 11:51 am • link • report

I'm with NativeSon on that one. Fort Circle Drive would have been, at the very least, interesting. The East/West parts of the city aren't knit together all that well...

Also, with regards to the (thanfully unbuilt) T St freeway, consider that the Souteast Freeway is fairly comparable to that, particularly in how it severed Barracks Row from the Navy Yard.

We've done a decent job of mitigating the effects to the north, but the areas south of the freeway never recovered or developed. If the goal was to segregate the city, the SE freeway and South Capitol Street did a marvelous job of that. Sigh.

by andrew on Jul 10, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report

@Michael Murphy:

“Roads are incredibly subsidized by tax dollars, as is general suburban living... that's not the "free market".
-----
Oh, boy. Here we going with the “roads are subsidized” canard.

As a matter of fact, 70 percent of the construction and maintenance costs of Interstate Highways in the United States has been paidthrough user fees, primarily the fuel taxes collected by the federal, state, and local governments.

To a much lesser extent, they have also been paid for by tolls collected on toll highways and bridges. That is, the portion of toll revenue that is left over after what's siphoned off to subsidize mass trainsit. The Highway Trust Fund, established by the Highway Revenue Act in 1956, prescribed a three-cent-per-gallon fuel tax, soon increased to 4.5 cents per gallon. In 1993, the tax was increased to 18.4 cents per gallon, where it remains as of 2012.

So yes, 70% of the cost of building the interstates - and most of those evil urban freeways - has been paid for by the user (drivers). The worst part is that their contribution would amount to nearly 90% if the money collected via the gas tax and tolls was fully used for road infrastucture rather than being cut to pay for mass transit.

Now, I ask you, how much of the construction of ANY mass transit system has been paid for via user fares?

You know what? The answer is zero. The DC Metro's yearly operating expenses are 54% subsidized on a yearly basis (according to WMATA); the billions it cost to build all come from someone else. That's not the case for roads and hasn't been for 60+ years.

And here's another fact (oh, those pesky facts!): 52% of the $6 billion cost of building the Metro Silver LIne Dulles rail developer's boondoggle is being raised by gouging Dulles Toll Road users (drivers!) with annually-increasing tolls. The one-way toll will be $4.50 by the end of next year.

The ridiculous slander on drivers is constantly being spread by folks obviously have no clue that on top of paying for 70% of all road construction in the US, drivers have paid for 100% of the cost of building mass transit - in addition to the PERPETUAL operating subsidies required to maintain and run it. And it is truly unfortunate that the people who are most likely to spread the "driving and roads are subsidized" nonsense are the very people who know the least about how transportation in the US is funded.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to be an adult and say thanks to drivers. And I certainly don't expect an apology for spreading misinformation.

As for the “subsidizing of suburbia”, it is true that the FHA and GI-financed mortgages that enabled the of the mid-late twentieth century and the mortgage tax deductions enabled the white flight from the cities and the subsequent large-scale development of the suburbs.

But keep in mind that market preferences for larger homes, more space, lower-cost housing, lower taxes, better schools, safer neighborhoods, and local government that works has driven that growth – and still does. Which gives the lie to your claim that the surburbs are “getting older and poorer” thanks to market preferences.

I know it’s tempting and fashionable to believe that the current preference for city life among young, trendy neo-urbanist hipsters is indicative of some huge paradigm shift, but it will never be more than what it is today: a niche market. Growing, yes, but a niche market all the same. When those hipsters grow up (and they will), they will have other priorities besides Metro access and walkability to the nearest bar.

by ceefer66 on Jul 10, 2012 12:13 pm • link • report

In one of the other maps, the ICC is mentioned.

And in positive news, another maps calls for playgrounds within 1/4 mile of every child. That never happened either.

by Jasper on Jul 10, 2012 12:33 pm • link • report

As a matter of fact, 70 percent of the construction and maintenance costs of Interstate Highways in the United States has been paidthrough user fees, primarily the fuel taxes collected by the federal, state, and local governments.
vs
The ridiculous slander on drivers is constantly being spread by folks obviously have no clue that on top of paying for 70% of all road construction in the US...

Whoops. These two things are not the same! "Interstate Highways" are not "all road construction in the US," not by a long shot. And most of the rest of it, especially local roads, are paid for with general funding - from ALL of us.

As for transit, it has huge benefits even for people who do not use it. The fact that transit has land-use impacts like increased density means we all (not just transit riders) save on other kinds of infrastructure. It also gets people out of cars and hence out of your way if you can't or don't want to use traffic - that benefits YOU, not transit riders. Doesn't seem to me that transit riders should have to shell out for benefits that go to other people or the public at large.

by MLD on Jul 10, 2012 12:35 pm • link • report

@ceefer66

There are plenty of other big suburban subsidies other than roads and mortgages. Much more expensive utility infrastructure due to lower densities, ubiquitous "free" parking, school buses.. etc.

by alex on Jul 10, 2012 12:57 pm • link • report

I'm from New Orleans and in the 60's they had to fight hard to keep the freeway (aka Vieux Carré Riverfront Expressway) out of the French Quarter along the river (the germ of the idea goes back to the early post war years), so plans like this aren't surprise for the day. I can just be thankful they both failed.

by ET on Jul 10, 2012 1:02 pm • link • report

Two things:

First, in the 1958 version that Dan made awhile back, some of those proposed routes were proposed as at-grade, not freeway.

Second, regarding David's last sentence in the article, "much of the money" for these proposed highways never existed to begin with. Most of what went to Metro construction was intended for the cancelled Interstate system, but the cancelled Interstates only represented a small portion of the proposed freeways/expressways in the region.

by Froggie on Jul 10, 2012 1:09 pm • link • report

"When those hipsters grow up (and they will), they will have other priorities besides Metro access and walkability to the nearest bar."

Yeah, they'll want metro access and walkability to the nearest supermarket.

by Thayer-D on Jul 10, 2012 1:09 pm • link • report

@ceefer66:

A few errors of your own:

- 90% of the cost of constructing the Interstate system was borne by the Federal gas tax. MAINTENANCE, however, has never been higher than 80%, even without your argument about gas tax revenue going to transit. But the reality is that maintenance of the Interstates has been under 70% to begin with, NOT because of the revenue going to transit, but because the states don't wait for FHWA to pay the bill for maintenance/repair jobs. They do it with their own state or locally-driven revenue.

- The biggest flaw in your argument is that the Interstate system represents only a SMALL percentage of the roads in the US. There are over 4 million miles of streets and roads in the US, but only about 46,700 miles of Interstate highway. You do the math.

by Froggie on Jul 10, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

Sorry, ceefer. He's right. Roads are subsidized. Point blank.

by DaleT on Jul 10, 2012 1:25 pm • link • report

@ceefer66 - no need to make this personal; I am an adult, a taxpayer, a driver, and I live in the District.

70% is not 100% and interstate funding is hardly a measure of the comprehensive costs of building and maintaining a road network - local roads, traffic enforcement, zoning costs, the imposition of imminent domain should also be considered. The cost of distributed supply chains for goods and services is borne by all in the form of increased prices, not just those who live in far-flung exurbs - transportation costs are rarely delineated beyond metro region by enterprises as they develop and maintain their downstream supply chains. As a veteran, I also feel I must highlight the nationally-shared expeditionary national defense and diplomatic costs associated with guaranteeing a steady supply of petroleum for this purpose - these costs are not always easily measured in dollars.

I am not a fan of the metro system - it's unquestionably poorly administered. However, I do agree with MLD: transportation capacity is a fungible commodity - you would need more roads to accommodate traffic if there was no mass transit option, or your commute would only be that much longer. Mass transit is also not Metrorail alone - it includes bus routes, street cars, and even BikeShare. Many of these are fully funded by user fees, some are subsidized. Property values in vicinity of metro stations rise by an average of 40% - the associated property tax revenue windfall should be considered before condemning the system entirely.

IAD's lack of a direct mass transit link to the District hurts the economic viability of the area - especially tourism. Eased congestion on the toll road is the compensation you will receive in exchange for your tolls.

As for increasing urbanization, the 2010 census speaks for itself... there is no evidence at all that this is a short-lived trend.

by Michael Murphy on Jul 10, 2012 1:26 pm • link • report

The DC Metro's yearly operating expenses are 54% subsidized on a yearly basis (according to WMATA)

This is extremely misleading. You're counting Metrobus and MetroAccess in that number.

Metrorail received a 18.1% operating subsidy in 2011, compared to 54.2% for WMATA as a whole. In the transit world, that's an exceptionally good cost-recovery ratio.

by andrew on Jul 10, 2012 1:27 pm • link • report

Yeah, Dale. Another screed about how the 'burbs are the wave of the future (they are, if you're in 1950) and how only a few hipster and oddballs live in cities. Typical.

by Allen Harlson on Jul 10, 2012 1:28 pm • link • report

I actually kind of like the idea of the circular one as it would make it somewhat easier to get around DC. I think there should have been atleast been one highway north/south and another east/west then get rid of 295 & 395 within DC

Currently it takes forever to travel end to end in DC I have to do it everyday. There is no good to do it either via roads or public transit this would have atleast helped.

by kk on Jul 10, 2012 3:08 pm • link • report

@Frank IBC

Well, yes and no about the Detroit freeways nearly all being built. The ones that did get built and funded, were built of course, but the original master plan (which I studied when I was getting my degree at Wayne State) included freeways down Mt Elliot to connect to the Columbus Hwy up to Romeo Michigan. Telegraph was suppose to be a highway. I-275 was suppose to connect South and North to I-75. The Davidson Freeway was suppose to extend and connect from I-96 to Detroit City Airport down Connor back to the riverfront. And I-375 was suppose to continue past downtown east to the Pointes. That was all in the original master plan, all sized down to laster master plans. The only items that were in later plans that were never done was the Mt Elliot to Columbus freeway and Davidson completion.

by Ray B on Jul 10, 2012 4:01 pm • link • report

Interstates are useless without local roads, local roads are paid for with the general fund. Local roads are subsidized, and reasonably so.

by Neil Flanagan on Jul 10, 2012 4:04 pm • link • report

Also, the Fort Circle drive would be good, I agree, but only if it were a narrow, true parkway like Beach Drive.

by Neil Flanagan on Jul 10, 2012 4:08 pm • link • report

thank god they didn't build a freeway through rock creek.

by nettie on Jul 10, 2012 4:09 pm • link • report

@DaleT,

"Sorry, ceefer. He's right. Roads are subsidized. Point blank."

-----

My argument was that roads are not FULLY subsidized -and they aren't.

Fact is, drivers pay a far greater share of the cost of building and maintaining roads that the portion that is covered by subsidies - in addition to subsidizing transit, partly with the revenue from road tolls.

Come back when you can say the same about transit users.

And spare me the "transit is good and should be subsidized, unlike driving" because that's simply a matter of opinion.

by ceefer66 on Jul 10, 2012 8:23 pm • link • report

@ceefer66,
If it's simply a matter of opinion that transit is good and should be subidized, why do all the wealthiet communities in the world subidize it? Do you think New York could generate so much wealth if it didn't have the subway? It's not just the ability to move people through dense cities versus being stuck in traffic and wasting productive hours, but the money it's citizen save by not owning a car, which goes straight into the economy. It's not just the environmental and health savings, but (as Murphy said) the whole cost of protecting the feul source.

No one's saying the car and suburb are bad in and of themselves, but we ought to facilitate the development of land in a more efficient way, kind of how buinesess that tend to survive and even thrive manage their costs better than their competitors.

by Thayer-D on Jul 10, 2012 9:30 pm • link • report

The proposal for a crosstown arterial along Van Ness, Tilden, Upshur and Taylor Streets is interesting.

Regarding the extended Rock Creek Parkway - Beach Drive is straight or with gentle curves until just south of Porter Street, with a tunnel south of the Zoo. The extension would have been relatively short - just to a split just south of Tilden Street, with the kink around Park Road eliminated, possibly by a tunnel.

What's interesting is that there are no roads at all shown in Rock Creek Park north of Tilden Street, except for Military Road and the road connecting Wise Road and Kalmia Road.

by Frank IBC on Jul 10, 2012 9:43 pm • link • report

A few more "connectors":

-Reservoir Road extended east of Wisconsin Avenue, connecting with Q Street.

-Adams Mill Road north from Harvard Street to Irving Street, forming a continuous road along the east side of Rock Creek Park in Adams Morgan and Mount Pleasant.

-Road built through the entire length of Whitehaven Parkway from Massachusetts Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard.

-Massachusetts Avenue extended across Anacostia, and further out, extended to join Pennsylvania Avenue in Maryland.

-New road connecting 11th Street NE at Florida Avenue and K Street, with North Capitol Street at Michigan Avenue.

by Frank IBC on Jul 10, 2012 10:02 pm • link • report

And Western Avenue is extended from Oregon Avenue across Rock Creek Park, runs conjunct with East-West Highway briefly, then joins 16th Street extended.

by Frank IBC on Jul 10, 2012 10:43 pm • link • report

DC certainly dodged a bullet, but what gets me the most is the depicted eastern extension of the Mall, for which the beautiful old houses on East Capitol, both A Streets, and one side each of Constitution and Independence would have been wantonly destroyed. I live on A Street SE and take this personally.

by A Streeter on Jul 11, 2012 12:39 am • link • report

Yes, considering how unpleasant the Mall can be during the summer months, I think we should be glad there isn't another 1.5 miles of it cutting a swath across the city.

by MLD on Jul 11, 2012 8:11 am • link • report

@Thayer-D,

My goal is not to praise roads and trash transit. I was only attempting to counter the oft-promoted (too often, I might add) and absolutely false notion that the cost of building and maintaining roads (highways for the purpose of this discussion) is unfairly borne by everyone - drivers and non-drivers alike.

I mainly drive and I use transit whenever its practical so I have a vested interest in both. But what I see here is a lot of exaggeration, both of the costs of roads and the benefits of transit.

Fact is, the cost of building and maintaining highways is borne mainly by those who use them. If you don't drive, highways don't cost you much.

Transit, on the other hand, costs everyone, whether they use it or not. As a matter of fact, a significant portion of the cost of subsidizing transit is covered not only by taxes paid by drivers, but also by fuel taxes and tolls revenues collected from drivers - money that could be spend on roads, thereby reducing the road "subsidy" from non-drivers. The people who crow that "roads are subsidized" always conveniently omit that fact.

We can go on all day about the benefits of roads and transit.

Suffice to say, roads directly benefit us all. If you have an emergency, the 911 operator isn't going to ask you for your nearest Metro station or bus stop. And your favorite stores get their stock from vehicles that travel on roads.

Transit, on the other hand, directly benefits only two groups: those who use it and those who own property along its routes.

As for the money "saved" by not owning car "going straight into the economy", where do you think the money spent buying, financing, maintaining, operating, and insuring a vehicle goes? And what about the effect that traveling by car has on the travel, lodging, entertainment, and other sectors of the economy?.

Face it. A personal vehicle gives the user far more mobility - and ability to inject money "straight into the economy" - than dependence on train and bus schedules and availabilty. This isn't rocket science.

And what value value do you place on people's time and productivity? You know, the time not lost on following trainsit schedules? The time time not lost, getting to, waiting for, and riding the train or bus?

I think you'll agree, it's all relative.

by ceefer66 on Jul 11, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

@ceefer66,
If you want another example of how auto-oriented development is hurting us economically, see this Huffington Post article. mindhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/unemployment-problem-public-transportation_n_1660344.html

The idea that transit only benefits the transit users, while roads directly benefits everyone makes sense. They both benefit everyone, it's the efficiency that matters. Why is freight rail kicking trucking's butt with out highway subsidies? Cause it's more efficient and cost effective. Why do people pay premiums for being near metro stations, same reason. It's not about ideology, it's about results.

by Thayer-D on Jul 11, 2012 10:06 am • link • report

@Thayer-D - "When those hipsters grow up (and they will), they will have other priorities besides Metro access and walkability to the nearest bar."

Yeah, they'll want metro access and walkability to the nearest supermarket senior center.

by Tina on Jul 11, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

Interestingly it was community groups and activist that fought to stop some of these freeways -- the same people and groups now being chastised as anti-progress NIBYs

by Ken on Jul 11, 2012 5:42 pm • link • report

"Yeah, they'll want metro access and walkability to the nearest supermarket senior center"
----
Be careful with the snark.

You will be one of them yourself one day. IF you're lucky enough to live that long.

(3 efforts with the CAPTCHA, Those guys smoking again? Damn I hate that crap!)

by ceefer66 on Jul 11, 2012 6:29 pm • link • report

ceefer66: There is a box to check to save your name and email address; if you do that, you don't have to do the captcha. You comment a lot, so why not save yourself the trouble?

by David Alpert on Jul 11, 2012 6:42 pm • link • report

@Ken - I understand the parallel and irony. However I think there is a difference between a plan that condemns a whole neighborhood design and hundreds of houses as obsolete and sets out to make people leave homes they currently reside in so those buildings can be torn down along with all the other buildings in the neighborhood, to be replaced by a very different type of bldg that drastically changes the neighborhood design; and groups opposed to a project to update a neighborhood grocery store that includes some new housing that, in design, is in keeping with the nature of the existing neighborhood, like the Cleveland Pk Giant project; or the Tenleytown Janney school & library project; or the siting of a the streetcar barn, etc.

The planners and supporters of those projects don't/didn't see the neighborhood with disdain and seek to wholly change the nature, look and feel of it while forcing people out of their current homes. In fact there are/were neighborhood groups that support(ed) those projects in their own neighborhood b/c they think it will enhance it. Do you think there were organized groups in Shaw saying "yeah where I live is a hell hole. Tear it down"? The fact that Shaw wasn't destroyed is evidence of the opposition as you point out.

In none of the example plans I cited (or any others I can think of that are covered on this blog site) would hundreds of existing homes be demolished and people displaced. Yes there are similarities but as a whole the differences are much greater.

The two that I think may be most similar was the plan that torn down a bunch of houses for the new convention center. I still miss seeing those houses and those city blocks. That plan drastically changed the way the neighborhood looked and felt in those couple of blocks wher the CC is, by drastically changing its form. Was anyone displaced? IDK. And the DC USA development. Was anyone displaced? Or was that all on abandoned bldgs and vacant lots? Can't remember. But even those were small scale compared to this plan and what happened in SW, and most people in those neighborhoods supported those changes, especially DC USA (maybe not so much the CC)

by Tina on Jul 11, 2012 6:59 pm • link • report

@ceefer66 - I am not being snarky. Walkable neighborhoods are the best thing to help age in place. Its not a joke. I am thinking about myself. I wanna be independent, active and in good health. Staying active is the best way to achieve those goals as one ages, and staying active is facilitated by living in a walkable neighborhood.

by Tina on Jul 11, 2012 7:12 pm • link • report

The idea that transit only benefits the transit users, while roads directly benefits everyone makes sense. They both benefit everyone, it's the efficiency that matters.

Virtually everyone benefits enormously from roads, including people who don't own cars or motorcycles. The benefits of transit are much more concentrated among the small subset of the population that uses it regularly.

Why is freight rail kicking trucking's butt with out highway subsidies? Cause it's more efficient and cost effective.

Rail is a very efficient method of long-distance transportion for non-perishable goods and materials, especially bulky ones like cars and coal. That's why (private) freight rail is doing very well. Rail is a very inefficient method of transporting passengers, except in very limited circumstances. That's why private passenger rail is virtually non-existent, and why public passenger rail is doing so poorly even with massive subsidies.

Why do people pay premiums for being near metro stations.

Because being near a metro station is worth something in areas served by a metro system. A more relevant question would be: Why are so few areas served by a metro system? The answer is that, except in a very few places, cars are a much better method of urban transportation.

by Bertie on Jul 11, 2012 10:14 pm • link • report

Thanks, David. I never knew that.

by ceefer66 on Jul 11, 2012 10:27 pm • link • report

Do you think New York could generate so much wealth if it didn't have the subway?

Of course. The New York subway is a legacy of the city's age. The much newer American cities of the south and west either don't have a subway system at all, or have only a very limited system.

It's not just the ability to move people through dense cities versus being stuck in traffic and wasting productive hours, but the money it's citizen save by not owning a car, which goes straight into the economy.

If people thought that subways were a better way of getting around urban areas than cars, we would have built our cities and urban transportation systems accordingly. Cars have become overwhelmingly dominant, not just in the U.S. but in virtually every other wealthy country, because they offer a much more favorable mix of costs and benefits than subways (or mass transit in general).

by Bertie on Jul 11, 2012 10:55 pm • link • report

Bertie,
I know I will never change your mind, but for those on the fence, I'll try to respond to some of your points.

"Rail is a very inefficient method of transporting passengers, except in very limited circumstances. That's why private passenger rail is virtually non-existent"

That's not true. The government did the bidding of General Motors and Standard Oil after WWII and put all their energy in promoting automobile use and consumption. It's well documented, like it or not.

"Why are so few areas served by a metro system? The answer is that, except in a very few places, cars are a much better method of urban transportation"

Wouldn't this have been true for those areas before they built the metro?

"The much newer American cities of the south and west either don't have a subway system at all, or have only a very limited system."

Yet their building them now. Look at Charlotte NC,California, etc. and they're still outperforming car dependant areas economically.

"If people thought that subways were a better way of getting around urban areas than cars, we would have built our cities and urban transportation systems accordingly"

If negotiating was a better way of dealing with conflict, there would be need for wars, but becasue we have wars, it must be the best way!

What I don't get is this idea that transit and cars can't coexist. Who cares if cars or transit are dominant as long as you are solving problems efficiently and succeding economically and socially. Eating fast food is also dominant in virtually every wealthy country, but that dosen't discount the importance of eating vegetables to promote health and wellbeing. I respect your right to have you're opinion, but following your logic makes my head hurt.

by Thayer-D on Jul 12, 2012 9:12 am • link • report

Thank God that the "Cars Rule, Transit Drools" commission is here to set us right!

by Jeserlex on Jul 12, 2012 9:43 am • link • report

That's not true. The government did the bidding of General Motors and Standard Oil after WWII and put all their energy in promoting automobile use and consumption. It's well documented, like it or not.

No, it's not documented at all. Cars have become the overwhelmingly dominant mode of transportation not just in the U.S. but in virtually every wealthy country. They are simply much better than the alternatives for the vast majority of travel.

Wouldn't this have been true for those areas before they built the metro?

No.

Yet their building them now. Look at Charlotte NC,California, etc. and they're still outperforming car dependant areas economically.

No, they're not building them. Virtually all new rail transit is light rail, not subways. Subways are far too expensive to build in all but the most heavily-travelled corridors. And the new light rail systems that have been built over the past few decades are so small they have virtually no impact on overall urban transportation. Light rail provides only about 5% of travel by urban mass transit, and a minuscule fraction of total urban travel.

And I have absolutely no idea what evidence you think supports your claim that "they're still outperforming car dependant areas economically."

by Bertie on Jul 12, 2012 12:52 pm • link • report

The benefits of transit are much more concentrated among the small subset of the population that uses it regularly.

I don't think that's accurate. People who drive in a city with transit benefit from reduced congestion. Anyone who lives in the city benefits from more land freed up that would have gone towards parking. There are environmental benefits that translate to people outside the area where transit exists. Safety benefits for pedestrians. Reduced oil consumption reduces reliance on foreign oil which helps many. When the disabled or poor can get to work that serves society much more than having them be unemployed, etc... So virtually everyone benefits from transit, including people who don't use transit or live in cities.

Cars have become the overwhelmingly dominant mode of transportation not just in the U.S. but in virtually every wealthy country.

I'm not entirely sure this is true. It takes a lot to overwhelm me. Regardless transit is an important (and sometimes dominant) mode of transportation not just in U.S. cities but in virtually every city in every wealthy country in the world.

by David C on Jul 13, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

"Who cares if cars or transit are dominant as long as you are solving problems efficiently and succeding economically and socially"

BINGO!!!!

I dont get these generic "transit vs car" discussions, outside the context of a particular policy or project. the generic discussions include much that is irrelevant to policy - for example the issues with transit emissions not being that low - well they are high because utilization is low, and utilization is low because we use transit not just on high density corridors where its a tool against congestion and emissions, but in places where its only used by captive riders, as a social service, in essence. Unless we are going to abolish that kind of service, its a useless discussion. It has nothing to do with the benefit cost of specific projects, or even say the size of the FTA new starts program.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 10:31 am • link • report