Tolling Urban Freeways

[EOst]

Windowless rooms, choked with soot. Twelve people in a single bedroom. No running water, no indoor plumbing, garbage thrown into the airshaft and left to rot.

Have you ever been in an old tenement, one that hasn't been extensively remodeled? Have you ever looked at the photography of people like Jacob Riis? Of course we haven't solved poverty, but that doesn't mean there weren't massive problems in how cities used to work. If we've replaced those with other problems, it still doesn't make your fetishized pre-automobile world any less of a fantasy.

[Tom H.]

The observation that "if the freeway system were priced at market rates it would not exist in its current form" strongly confirms (in my mind) that the proliferation of the suburbs is not so much a result of the desires of the people, as it is a subsidized distortion of the free market (a.k.a. "social engineering" in scare-speak).

[talindsay]

How did it work a century ago?

Tenements and massive poverty, job lock-in, and giant manufacturing concerns which dominated an area's workforce. The past wasn't pleasant just because it didn't have cars.

Yes, exactly. abject poverty and unsafe living conditions were rampant in the era before WWI. It's easy to miss this point today, but American cities in that era were choked with serious pollution in the air and water, housing conditions were appalling, and job mobility was nonexistent for most people. corporate boom and bust cycles, along with inconsistent and corrupt government regulation, meant conditions didn't improve as rapidly as legislation would imply. We were only twenty years past the close of this era when the interstates were built, meaning that the people who suddenly had the opportunity to suburbanize still remembered the worst of that era, and most cities were still dirty and unsafe at that point too.

We judge the past as though conditions were similar to today, but the changes of the 1970s - especially the EPA - dramatically changed the landscape of cities and our conditions today aren't directly comparable.

[Tom H.]

It seems that certain areas of the world - parts of Europe, for example - have solved a lot of these "bad city" problems without resorting to the suburban sprawl model.

[mattaudio]

The observation that "if the freeway system were priced at market rates it would not exist in its current form" strongly confirms (in my mind) that the proliferation of the suburbs is not so much a result of the desires of the people, as it is a subsidized distortion of the free market (a.k.a. "social engineering" in scare-speak).

truth

[EOst]

It seems that certain areas of the world - parts of Europe, for example - have solved a lot of these "bad city" problems without resorting to the suburban sprawl model.

Well, first of all, there really aren't any major European cities that don't have suburban sprawl. Their sprawl may look different, but it's the same beast.

Moreover, that's because of massive cultural differences between America and most of Europe. America "solved" the problem of the early 20th century city by fleeing the city, and leaving it to the poor; Europe, conversely, pushed the poor people out to the very margins. Neither of those is a good solution.

[talindsay]

It seems that certain areas of the world - parts of Europe, for example - have solved a lot of these "bad city" problems without resorting to the suburban sprawl model.

Absolutely, and I don't mean to imply that it was a good choice or that it somehow gives a pass to the crazy proliferation of freeways and suburbs that occurred from the 1960s-1990s. I just point out that there were reasons beyond simply thinking cars were great that so many people thought this was the right thing to do.

[RailBaronYarr]

It seems that certain areas of the world - parts of Europe, for example - have solved a lot of these "bad city" problems without resorting to the suburban sprawl model.

Well, first of all, there really aren't any major European cities that don't have suburban sprawl. Their sprawl may look different, but it's the same beast.

It's not the same beast. Spending any time whatsoever in suburban areas of Germany, Norway, Netherlands, France, etc would confirm this. Data on transportation spending per capita, transit farebox recovery rates, walk/bike/transit modal shares, carbon output, people living below the poverty line, and upward social mobility would all support the fact that it's not the same beast as well.

Moreover, that's because of massive cultural differences between America and most of Europe. America "solved" the problem of the early 20th century city by fleeing the city, and leaving it to the poor; Europe, conversely, pushed the poor people out to the very margins. Neither of those is a good solution.

Well, one option makes it easy for low income people to still access jobs without cars, either the ones nearby (on foot, bike, or by transit since their suburbs are actually built in a way so running small bus services is feasible), or in the center of the region (or beyond) by transit.

Compare this map of area accessible by foot+transit in a 30 minute window from a point 7 miles outside of Minneapolis: Mpls Transit Travel Time_Mapnificent__7 MIles Out_30min

to the same distance outside of Manchester (a city/metro of similar populations and industrial backgrounds) by the same distance (which, I might add, includes a lot more people between that point and the city center than Mpls does)Manchester_7milesOut_30min_Transit

I wish Mapnificent had more medium-sized cities and metros for comparison, particularly in Germany where things are even better accessibility-wise.

[RailBaronYarr]

...besides, this whole argument forgets the fact that we could pay low income people directly for taking urban toll roads.

[FISHMANPET]

Whenever there's a criticism that the poor can't afford a market correction, the solution isn't to forgo the correction, it's to just give the poor money to compensate.

[Mdcastle]

There's a lot of reasons besides loving cars that people choose to live in the suburbs. Even all the freeways were toll roads I'd still live out here, so it's not a 'market distortion" that makes people want to live here and not the city. Although make it too expensive to visit the city and I wonder how many people would find a job out in the suburbs rather than pay to drive in or move closer.

[FISHMANPET]

There's a lot of reasons besides loving cars that people choose to live in the suburbs. Even all the freeways were toll roads I'd still live out here, so it's not a 'market distortion" that makes people want to live here and not the city. Although make it too expensive to visit the city and I wonder how many people would find a job out in the suburbs rather than pay to drive in or move closer.

Nobody here has any problems with you living a car dependent lifestyle in the suburbs, we just don't want to subsidize it.

[ECtransplant]

Although make it too expensive to visit the city and I wonder how many people would find a job out in the suburbs rather than pay to drive in or move closer.

Make suburbanites pay the true costs of living in sprawl, and I wonder how many people would continue to do so

[grant1simons2]

Although make it too expensive to visit the city and I wonder how many people would find a job out in the suburbs rather than pay to drive in or move closer.

Make suburbanites pay the true costs of living in sprawl, and I wonder how many people would continue to do so

No this isn't the right idea behind tolls. I'll support it but not for this reason. Punishment for wanting to live way from the city is a very dumb idea. People just want to be away sometimes.

[mister.shoes]

That's just fine. Feel free to live away from the city. But accept the additional costs that come with that decision: it may take a long time and cost additional monies to take advantage of the amenities the city has to offer. There should be no expectation of free or fast transportation through or around neighborhoods and communities full of people who have chosen to live closer to the center of the metro. Transportation of any means is extremely expensive, absolutely including freeways.

[FISHMANPET]

I like to wear nice suits, but I don't expect the government to subsidize such that it's cheaper than a pair of khakis and a polo shirt. I'm not sure why we should expect the government to subsidize my particular lifestyle choice to wear suits or someone else's lifestyle choice to live in the suburbs. If you find value in living in the suburbs, then by all means do it, but be prepared to pay for it.

[grant1simons2]

But the reason should not be because you chose not to live in the city... It should be because you want to reduce traffic and such and allow a alternative lane for those who want it. It won't all be suburbanites, it will also be people from the city who need to travel at a time where there might be traffic. I never said "I want to live in the suburbs" but I will defend the people who live in first ring and second ring burbs because they don't deserve any sort of "punishment" for being out there.

[FISHMANPET]

Paying for things what they cost isn't punishment, it's paying what things cost.

[mattaudio]

Right now other people are punished for their choice

[ECtransplant]

Saying people should have to pay the full costs of their decisions is not punishing them. Subsidizing their decisions so they don't have to pay their true cost punishes people who don't make that decision yet still end up footing the bill.