German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseMorning Commute: Transit News Roundup
Contributed by Fred Camino on October 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am
- Angelenic notices the new ad blitz at 7th Metro Center. He likes it. I don’t. I miss my Angus burgers.
- London goes hardcore for the 2012 Olympics: No cars allowed.
- FlyAway switching to smaller buses. Might make sense for Union Station buses, but Van Nuys buses are always crazy full.
- Three-fourths of Americans believe that being smarter about development and improving public transportation are better long-term solutions for reducing traffic congestion than building new roads. Take that haters!
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
18. Business and homes should be built closer together, often in the same community, to shorten
commutes and limit traffic congestion
55% 43%
And if the question were: 18. Business and homes should be built closer together, often in the same community, to increase commutes and increase traffic congestion? Still the question as biased as it was still didn’t manage much directed response.
19. Business and homes should be built closer together, so that stores and shops are within walking
distance and don’t require the use of an automobile.
57% 42%
This assumes that modern business practices don’t require the use of an automobile. If the question were “Would you be willing to pay higher prices to reduce…” the answer would be?…
20. New home construction should be limited in outlying areas and encouraged in very urban areas to
shorten commutes and prevent more traffic congestion. 61% 36%
ibid, op cit.
Rob said:
“Business and homes should be built closer together, often in the same community, to increase commutes and increase traffic congestion?”
The goal of smart growth is not to increase commutes and traffic congestion so it’s no surprise the question wasn’t phrased in that way.
“This assumes that modern business practices don’t require the use of an automobile.”
It’s a pretty safe assumption. As you can see from page 15 of the 2001 NHTS Summary of Travel Trends(PDF), far and away the main use of the automobile for work is commuting. And as this article from the 2001 NHTS Survey indicates, work travel in proportion to personal (recreation, errands, shopping) has steadily decreased over the years, now accounting for only 16% of all person trips. Even without this survey date, you know as well as I do that the majority of jobs do not require a car other than to get to and from them or to drive to lunch because there is no nearby restaurants. Most travel needed for jobs could be easily fulfilled by shared company cars or a more extensive public transit/taxi system.
The statistics clearly show that the majority of car trips are for errands, shopping, and recreation… clearly a product of those things being beyond walking distance from most people.
The goal of smart growth is not to increase commutes and traffic congestion so it’s no surprise the question wasn’t phrased in that way.
Yeah, and the results? Understand, the point of surveys is to solicit answers not opinions.
Nevermind that, you continue with: 2001 NHTS Survey indicates, the main use of the automobile for work is commuting.
Correct and it also indicates that transit takes twice as long and costs twice as much. Spending twice as much time on the road reduces congestion how? Spending twice as much for the same trip leaves money for improvements how?
“Yeah, and the results? Understand, the point of surveys is to solicit answers not opinions.”
Surveys can’t be used to solicit opinions? That’s clearly what this survey, and many surveys are about. Via your logic, answers cannot be opinions.
And what are the results of sprawl? We are living in it right now. If you have no problem with traffic, then case-closed, you’re right, but if you do then something is off. Why are cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, Atlanta, and Houston are choked in traffic despite their sprawling nature.
“Correct and it also indicates that transit takes twice as long and costs twice as much.”
Under current sprawl/auto-oriented conditions Rob. This is a survey about smarth growth, not sprawl. AS we’ve seen, when a sprawling city grows, mobility (the most important thing) chokes and there is very little that can be done to solve it… but clearly continuing to build outward will only further the problem. If you really think that furthering sprawl and adding more lanes will solve mobility problems in massive and dense urban regions, more power to you, but be prepared to be pay the cost, it will likely be much greater that what you’re paying for the subway right now.
The cost of not building the needed transit infrastructure is FAR greater than the cost of building it.
The golden age of single-occupancy motoring is over. Anyone who still has a sense of entitlement that they should be able to drive and park their car affordably and quickly, anytime, anyplace, anywhere in Southern California is delusional. While many people will still choose a single-occupancy automobile as their personally preferred transportation modality — the best days of that modality are behind us. Road building will not keep Los Angeles economically and environmentally sustainable.
We need an aggressive investment in public transit on a similar scale and scope that freeways were built in the 1950s. Yes, it will cost money. It may cost a lot of money. But the cost of not building it and relying on road and bus only transportation in Southern California will be catastrophic in the long-term.
I understand what Rob Dawg is saying and I would like to see if I can better explain.
Part of the “art” of surveying is phrasing questions in a way that does not lead to a particular response. Your goal in conducting a survey is to find out what people believe, whether or not they are informed about the implications of those beliefs.
For instance, the first question would be more effective if it was just: “Business and homes should be built closer together, often in the same community” - people will have their own opinion on this, and a different opinion on the question as originally stated.
Like Rob Dawg alluded to, a survey should act as a thermometer so that initial attitudes can be gauged. In no case would we consider readings from a thermometer that also contains a heater to be in objective or credible instrument.
Hexodus understands. BTW, I’d be and have been equally critical of bias in the other direction.