The Real Gridlock Fighter: Public Transportation

x-posts: Brudaimonia, The Proving Ground

George Will has a keen ability to package ill-informed nonsense in a shiny wrap of apparent erudition.

Not that I disagree with all of the points in his recent article on traffic congestion entitled "Fighting the Real Gridlock."  I am in favor, for example, of dynamic tolling on highways and reforming transportation pork.  It's just that the spirit of the whole article contradicts itself by reaffirming the status quo it purports to shatter.

Notes: I meant this to be a minor rebuttal to part of a recent article by George Will (which wouldn't be the first time I've called out his misinformation), but it grew into a larger discussion of the merits of public transportation to relieve traffic congestion and reduce gasoline dependence.  It's timely because right now the Energize America team is hard at work on the first draft of the High Speed Passenger Rail Act, with many constructive comments.  Check it out if you haven't already.  OK, back to the diary...

Will's article starts off well by recognizing the costs of traffic congestion: monetary costs, family time, time for civic engagement, and so forth. (Will's occasional mention of transportation secretary Mary Peters, perhaps some politically-motivated hat tip, is awkward, as she is not really essential to the article.)  Will notes that

[i]n the past 20 years, congestion in the 85 largest cities has caused the number of hours lost each year by the average driver in rush hours to increase from 16 to 47. In the 13 largest cities, drivers are stuck in traffic the equivalent of nearly eight workdays.

But then comes the call for "fresh thinking and departures from the status quo." Since the status quo has been building new highways and adding new lanes to old highways, it's exciting to hear what this "fresh thinking" might be.

There must be new highways and new lanes on some old ones.

Aw, what a letdown.  The psychology of prior investment affects even the most erudite among us, for even they can't let go of the infrastructure that currently makes possible nearly half the world's automotive carbon emissions.

But there also must be new ways -- made possible by new technologies -- of using lanes.

No doubt we must forge ahead with new technologies to reduce congestion on existing highways, yet Will's big solution is just a refurbishing of the status quo.  Or, as James Howard Kunstler would call it, "a desperate wish to keep the cars running by any conceivable means, at all costs."

To make this tired old scheme justifiable, Will must brush aside the formidable objection that is the theory of "induced travel": adding more car lanes to a highway only increases demand to drive on it.

The usual scolds -- environmentalists, urban "planners," [ouch, those quotation marks sting deep] enthusiasts for public transit (less than 5 percent of the workforce uses it) -- argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and hence are self-defeating. But as Ted Balaker and Sam Staley respond in their new book on congestion, "The Road More Traveled," among the 10 largest metropolitan areas, Los Angeles has the least pavement per person; Dallas has twice as much per person and half as much congestion.

Responding to conservative misinformation is like playing "Find the Fallacy."  Here Will uses a single, flawed comparison, cited from a book by two conservative libertarians, in an attempt to disprove induced travel and implicitly argue against the fact that highway-heavy, transit-poor cities are recipes for congestion.  Dallas does indeed have less congestion than Los Angeles, yet Will presents no evidence that it is because of its pavement levels.  The fallacy is implied causality in the presence of mere correlation.  In reality, there are many, many factors that contribute to, or mitigate, traffic congestion.

A simple look at the numbers casts doubt on Balaker and Staley's claim.  According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in the 21-year period from 1982 to 2003, congestion in both Dallas and Los Angeles increased.  But Dallas's congestion increased at a rate 61% higher than that of Los Angeles.  This is because Dallas's congestion index increased 46 points over that time period, while Los Angeles's congestion index increased only 28 points.  In fact, Los Angeles has held its congestion relatively steady since 1990, while Dallas's congestion index has risen 23 points.

What has been happening in Los Angeles to keep its congestion steady over the last 17 years?  It might have something to do with mass transit, the real gridlock fighter.  Los Angeles's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) opened the region's first light rail line in 1990, its first heavy rail line in 1993, and another light rail line in 1995 (Wikipedia).  MetroLink, the regional rail system, began service in 1992.  The Antelope Valley Transit Authority, covering the exurbs of Lancaster and Palmdale, was formed in 1992. And these are not all of the transit additions Los Angeles made in the early 90s.

Of course, back in the day, Los Angeles used to have an excellent streetcar before it was slowly killed by General Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and other corporations seeking to force Angelenos to use their products to get around.

Today, the city is fighting the legacy of smog and congestion created by auto-dependent infrastructure and is embracing increased transit capacity and smart growth strategies.  It has a long way to go, but LA has a chief planner, Gail Goldberg, and a mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, who recognize the importance of smart growth.

Public transportation, not selling toll roads to private companies, is what will relieve America's congestion, and Americans are beginning to recognize this, even if George Will doesn't. In 2006, 10.1 billion trips were taken via public transportation, the largest public transportation ridership in 49 years.

Public transit use is up 30 percent since 1995. That is more than double the growth rate of the population (12 percent) and higher than the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled on our roads (24 percent) during that same period. In 2006, public transit ridership grew 2.9 percent over 2005. [American Public Transportation Association]

Even Dallas residents are tiring of all that pavement: bus ridership in the city was up 8.3 percent in 2006.

And this is all only 1.5 years removed from the passage of SAFETEA-LU, the infamous pork-laden transportation bill steered primarily by Alaska Republicans, lopsided by massive highway allocations, including the notorious "Bridges to Nowhere," and relatively scant public transit and bicycle rations.

Besides relieving congestion, the huge benefit of public transit is the gas it saves.  The APTA found that transit's record ridership saved 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline, which is enough to fill gasoline cans that could stretch to the moon (PDF).  Traffic congestion, on the other hand, wastes 2.3 billion gallons of gasoline (FHWA).

Yes, there are some things we can do on the highways to relieve congestion, but focusing solely on highways misses the larger solution of increased alternative transportation.  But seeing that solution will require actual fresh thinking and freedom from the pavement status quo.

•  No public transportation where I live

  I have to go 12 miles to find a paved road.

  by SarahLee on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:25:30 PM PDT

  •  Hopefully, Ted Stevens doesn't build a bridge...

    ...over your house.

    I was going to put up multiple categories for "Never", i.e. no transit where you live, no transit where you work, etc. and probably should have.

    by Brudaimonia on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:31:38 PM PDT

  •  Same here - not an option where I live

    by AnotherMassachusettsLiberal on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:21:21 PM PDT

    •  Me too. I'd love to use it if it existed n/t

      by Turquine on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:43:06 PM PDT

•  George Will is full of shit

  Just speaking anecdotally, I've seen very few instances where expanding a road leads to less traffic in the long run.

  by metal prophet on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:26:33 PM PDT

  •  Induced Travel

    The FHWA is ambivalent on it.

    However, adding lanes really does create new trips, and thus any congestion mitigation is limited.  For one example, from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute:

    Increasing urban roadway capacity tends to generate additional peak-period trips that would otherwise not occur.

    by Brudaimonia on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:38:37 PM PDT

    •  This isnt a problem

      you can really only look at in the macro. Statistics do lie. In some cases more lanes radically reduce traffic. In others it may increase it as lane swapping etc actually slows down traffic. And there are some ingenious alternatives out there as well. The traffic circles becoming common in small towns in the midwest are simply brilliant (though annoying in an 80' long truck!) at reducing intersection congestion and eliminating red lights. And some state dot's (excluding in particular ohio, ny and chicago) are constantly making fantastic innovations.

      by cdreid on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:33:08 PM PDT

•  I commute by foot

  So I have no need of public transit. But if I go to Philly or Atlantic City, you can bet I take public transit. I hate parking in big cities. Too damn expensive and a pain in the ass.

  by metal prophet on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:27:25 PM PDT

  •  Commuting by foot

    Parking in big cities really is a pain in the ass.  You must enjoy your commute.

    I commuted by foot when I lived in Alaska.  Now, I usually commute by bike, but if I have a lot of other errands to run or if the weather is shitty, I'll take the bus or train.

    Philly and New Jersey were two of the biggest gainers in light rail ridership in the APTA article I mentioned.

    by Brudaimonia on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:42:28 PM PDT

    •  I bought a house located so I could walk to work

      That was my highest priority. Before I was driving 45 miles each way to work - just a soul destroying waste of time.

      I urge more people when looking for a place to live to make walking a priority. Too often it gets put way down the list.

      I have a great path to work that does through a park. It revives my soul and is good for my health.

      If I am out late I usually take the bus home.

      I do use a car for groceries.

      Sorry I got here too late to tip.

      by shirah on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 04:59:48 PM PDT

•  Tip Jar for Transit, Flames for Traffic Jams

  OK, don't really flame me (unless you think I deserve it). :)

  by Brudaimonia on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:28:28 PM PDT

•  bus in bad weather

  bicycle in good weather (90% of the time).

  Conservatives are amazingly eager to pour billions of dollars to solve problems, sorry, hundreds of billions of dollars.  Does this [expletive deleted] imagine what it would take to double "amount of pavement per person" in Los Angeles?

  By the way, if congestion in LA is stable, that's because it is so high.  By the way of comparison, it is much easier to drive to Manhattan -- what really helps there that there is really no way to park there other then for 20-30 bucks --- a roundtrip by train or bus saves time and money.

  One possibility to explore, IMO, is combination of HOV lanes and web-based matchmaking of carpoolers which could make carpooling attractive AND flexible.  A carpooler could get a "credit" for using HOV lane for mere readiness to pick riders from a larger pool, which would allow to combine carpooling with flexible hours of work.  Given that all involved can  communicate by cell phone and requests and readiness could be matched by computer servers, it could be very efficient.

  by Piotr on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:14:13 PM PDT

  •  HOV doesnt work

    First it usually just shuts down a lane to almost all traffic. Secondly a good percentage of the traffic that uses it is usually illegitimate. And as far as "carpool matching" the ideas completely ignore human nature. People dont want to wait on others, especially strangers. They dont want to be forced into a strangers car or a stranger into theirs. They dont want to.. well.. be forced. Its' a freedom thing. Not that it isnt a good thing to do, just not something you want to rely on or expect to be able to force people into.

    We need a solution which maintains individual freedom and needs. Which doesnt cost people valuable time out of their lives waiting on others or on the state. Which is inexpensive, ecological, and fast. Subways and skyways meet those criteria where available. But for a nationwide system (even large towns cant afford subways etc. Only megacities can) you need something else. Computer driven electric cars which communicate with a state run traffic system would fit. As would separate local and long distance systems. IE a city provides public computerised vehicles for loan inexpensively (small, efficient) and devotes more and more resources to them. Or a "trade" program where individuals swap time by putting up their vehicle and in return being given access to others who've done the same at their destination (with adequate insurance against damage etc). And a national system where when leaving a town or city you simply  drive your vehicle to a depot, hop in the nearest LD vehicle and input your destination. And it takes you automatically.

    Systems like that reduces congestion, which is almost entirely caused by human error. It improves economy. Because the SUV/Luxury car driven by "family who craves status" isnt being driven 300 miles at 12mpg.

    by cdreid on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:29:23 PM PDT

    •  why not a "coop"?

      As it is, what by distance should be 30 minute commute takes an hour or more.  What I am proposing is to have computerized coops of flexible carpooling.  With transponders and cameras the enforcement of HOV lanes could be no more difficult than enforcing tolls on E-Z lanes.

      To provide a big dent in traffic congestion one needs to take off thousands of vehicles off the rounds, perhaps tens of thousands.  Coops of 2 to 100 individuals could be easier to form than "municipally provided vehicles", and computerization of private vehicles is no big deal, technologically.

      by Piotr on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:35:50 AM PDT

      •  Coops

        is it exactly. You're whole post hits the nail on the head. It is americans obsession with autos as status symbols that is the problem. People buying 350hp sports cars and SUV's they literally cant drive in hopes of making others think they are better than the person they see themselves as. Tremendous ecological and economic problems created by a minor psychological flaw preyed on by big business..

        by cdreid on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:36:06 PM PDT

      •  And

        I was proposing a "national coop system". You put your vehicle into the system  and in return are assigned a vehicle at your destination. There could be a small fee so that those without vehicles could in effect rent vehicles and those with vehicles could rent theirs out when not needed. With a standardised insurance/inspection system that provides for repairs/cleaning etc. So that individuals arent required to have complex personal interaction and dealings with strangers every time they make a trip.

        by cdreid on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 02:24:47 PM PDT

        •  perhaps not that expensive

          A good bus costs 500,000 and hybrid bus would cost 800,000.  One can have 20 hybrid cars for that price.  The question is how many rides per day would they give.

          A somewhat futuristic solution would have lines dedicated to "coop-cars" that would "drive by wire" when on the highway.  This way they could be driving much more densely that humanly possible, doubling the capacity of special lanes.  The speed and saving on gas an parking could make it attractive: a commuter easily spends 5 dollars on gas and extra 1-2 on parking each working day, on top of wear and tear of his/her car (I am thinking about my friend in Chicago, 20 miles each way with traffic jams).

          A fleet solution probably would make it easier to "tolerate strangers".  Extra highway lines, so preferred by George Will, cost billions of dollars per metro area.  A billion can purchase 50,000 hybrid cars on fleet prices, and users would cover major part of the cost, I presume.

          by Piotr on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:43:50 AM PDT

          •  I drive chicago weekly

            If there was ever a city crying out for massive public transportation it is chicago. Unfortunately its stunningly corrupt so..

            Ive thought of "micro railroad lines". Basically individual lightweight passenger carriers that hold four people. Small, electric, ultralight (plastic/alum construction) consisting of little besides a small motor and battery and a comfortable passenger compartment.  YOu go to a terminal. Put in a bank card and select your destination then step forward into the next car which is programmed to automatically drive you to your destination stop. A network controller system slips you into traffic so theres no "granny hesitating at traffic", no yo-yo effect (the cause of most traffic jams), just no human error n general. Cars are packed tightly and have onboard as well as remote safety devices that talk to each other. So when your car has to make an emergency stop it signals those around it and they do so also. When you get to your stop you rent a car or use local public transport etc.

            As for chicago etc a good solution would be working with business to make alternative shift change times (the 8-5 nonsense is idiotic in the 21st century). To charge an appreciable city tax based on car size. Ie subcompacts=0. SUV's etc 2000 a year. To begin to restrict vehicles bigger than subcompacts to keep them off the man highways and force them to local roads (Chicago is the one City in the US with MASSIVE congested highway traffic and very little traffic on its incredibly well designed and easy to use local roads. go figure).

            But as you said. The real solution has to be public, individual transportation. And the car companies (foreign and domestic) are going to toss cash around congress so deep to stop that its stunning.

            by cdreid on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:54:51 AM PDT

•  It's not just having a system that's needed

    It has to be a well designed system. Rail, light or heavy, doesn't work if it doesn't take people where they need to go. Bus routes are more flexible - but they too can get caught in traffic congestion. Plus, there's the problem of scheduling, pricing, and financing. And details like signage.

    If people find a system confusing, if they can't sort out when/where to get the ride they need, they're going to avoid using the system. There's a problem of critical mass - having a system large enough to provide a self-sustaining level of service convenient enough to be attractive to some desired level of ridership, and it has to be supported by good design that makes it user friendly.
   
      How would Apple design a mass transit system? Think different.

     Interconnectivity is important. You want to get people out of cars? Make it easy for them to get their cars to some point where they can access the system and get back to them when they're ready to drive that last lap in their travel plans. Make it convenient for people to be dropped off or picked up by drivers who aren't going to leave their cars parked there.

       If they get on a train, every station stop should also be a stop on a bus route - and there should be signage and other info that show when/where the buses go, how that matches up with trains, and directions on how to move from one to the other. Add in a compatible fare system, like an electronic pass that can be used on either, and see what happens.

      Several decades ago, I read an article in Scientific American about a South American city that did all of this. Their bus stops were dedicated to bus service - a raised platform with access ramps matched to bus floor height so that people could step - or roll wheel chairs - right onto the bus. There were other amenities - and we could do better today.

     How about shelters with AC or heat? Put solar panels on the roof and they could provide some of their own power right there. Smart displays that show when the next bus is coming, and what routes are served by buses that stop there. Built in web cam and links to local safety services like fire/police so that riders feel safer - and the community around each stop will use it as an emergency resource. Plus, bus line operators will be able to see where people are waiting for buses and adjust service accordingly. Include the ability to summon taxis, and people who need transport for some last short distance for whatever reason will be more likely to make use of it.

       Where possible, make the systems bicycle friendly. That will expand the area around each station/stop that can be served by people without resorting to cars. (Heck - it might even give people a reason to think about using Segways.) Put bike racks in convenient locations, set up bike lanes, and there would be some real synergy.

       At some point there should be feedback from the other development processes taking place. Some developer wants to put in a large housing development? Someone wants to build another mega-mall? A company wants big tax breaks and incetives to locate an industrial/tech park somewhere? A medical care complex? Insist that their plans accomodate the local transit systems. They want water, sewer, electrical, and safety services, right? Why NOT include transit in the mix? Duh!

         As for George Will, well I have to wonder if he has ever spent any time on the Washington DC subway system. It's a marvel and a success by all accounts I've heard. It certainly makes getting around DC a lot easier.

  by xaxnar on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:21:02 AM PDT

•  There is no public transportation

  in most places in america. Where there is it is usually  pathetic, as well as slow.

  The thing is though..  unless we go to a totally new system the current one will eventually fail.

  There was a time not long ago when you could drive on the interstate almost anywhere at 3am and be lone. No more. There is constant traffic on every interstate, highway and state route in the nation. And even on most major local roads. The system is saturated to the point that we arent able to build and repair as fast as the traffic grows. And it will eventually fail.

  We need a national system that relies on state owned vehicles powered via electricity. A prompt, efficient inexpensive system that relies on the system waiting on the people rather than visa versa. Such as national electric "minirail" (small computer controlled electric vehicles that carry 1 - 4 people and remove the 'pilot error' problem), publicly owned "loaner" electrics avaiilable inside major cities that are much smaller and more efficient than the "battlewagon" mentality drives us too etc. We just can do it anymore.. the system will fail with out a radical solution within the next few decades.

  by cdreid on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:15:29 PM PDT

•  They key to successful rail transit is density

  beginning with population densities. Which makes rail transit somewhat problematical in typical American suburbs, and even urban cores of such cities as Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc. which have low population densities relative to older cities such as New York, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco.

  Next, you need to have a density of rail, meaning miles of track per person, usually measured as kilometers of route miles per thousand of population; and miles of track per urban land area, usually measured as kilometers of route miles per square kilometer.

  Put more simply, you want to build an urban mass transit system where almost every residence is within three kilometers (about a mile and a half) of a rail route optimally, and a rail station ideally.

  Doing this will require – besides slaying the conservative "free market" hatred for big government projects – a national mobilization of tunneling technology and capacity. Because we’re going to rebuild America’s cities from underneath the ground:

  According to Wired in April 2003
  http://www.wired.com/...

  The cost to burrow down is dropping, while the price (and hassle) of erecting a skyscraper in a dense urban area just keeps rising. The breakthrough comes thanks to tunneling technologies that are now being used on huge transportation projects, like Boston's Big Dig and Moscow's Lefortovo highway tunnel project. Over the next 10 years these techniques will be used to hollow out space beneath the world's great cities.
  Until recently, tunneling required large crews to drill holes, cart out rock, and install lining. All of that manpower drove up costs, and not just because of wages earned. In the late 1960s, tunneling consultant Howard Handewith led a federal assessment of the practicality of building an ultrahigh-speed transportation link under the Northeast Corridor. What killed the project was the expense of constructing worker-escape shafts at 1-mile intervals. "Nobody," says Handewith, "wanted to have to travel 50 miles to get out if a situation came up."
  Take humans out of the digging process and the price of a hole starts to fall.

  by NBBooks on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:22:42 PM PDT

  •  We got density here.

    We are the most dense city in MA.  And we had to fight like crazy to get an extension from the MBTA that we were promised.  This meant lawsuits, lawsuits, and threats of lawsuits.

    But it looks like we may be getting it.  However]--damn cat keeps typing extra characters....  However, this points to an additional problem:  you need serious community involvement and commitment from long-term residents.  In many places today people are so transient (because that's the way the corporate system is now) that it may not be possible to find the committed community activists you need for this.

    We have a stunning consensus of politicians and residents here (At least in Somerville; Medford is a bit mixed).  There was nearly zero opposition to this plan.  But it was a hard slog.  And will still be a decade or more before we see the outcome.  In today's instant-gratification society that's hard to maintain.

    by mem from somerville on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:25:55 AM PDT

•  Adding Lanes? Ha!

  For the past 10 years the City of Chicago has been
  working on wiring all of its traffic signals into
  computer systems to create "Intelligent Traffic
  Systems". The organization originally responsible
  for this was moved four times in that period, the
  last two times under a new department, the Office
  of Emergency Management and Communications. Why?
  To get the surveillance cameras, that's all.

  Meanwhile, the traffic engineers, such as your's truly, have NO access to what few systems we have
  on-line. One system, West Randolph Street, runs
  past our new digs at Racine & Washington. We can't
  access the controllers, and the alderman decided
  that three locations must have all-way STOP's,
  effectively killing the system (until said same
  alderman decides to spend $350,000 per intersection
  to signalize them).

  Technology as a capacity enhancer is a fine thing:
  they've pushed it since the late 1930's in Norman
  Bel Geddes Futurama exhibit, tinkered with it
  in the 1950's, and dredged it up lately with the
  latest microcomputers. IT. DOESN'T. WORK.

  There is NO intelligence it ITS. Just profit
  motive.

  by JeffW on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:57:26 PM PDT

  •  Two thoughts...

    (i) you're one Windows virus infection away from mass chaos all over Chicago (assumption:  the traffic management system is being run on a Windows system.  --Paranoid fantasy, you say?--I would have thought so too, before I learned about the Aegis cruiser Yorktown, which (in 1998) had to be towed back to port after a complete meltdown of its NT-powered control systems)

    and

    (ii) the major motivation to do all this (over and above any peripheral project to move money into the hands of Administration campaign contributors) could quite possibly be that the resulting system of (high-resolution) traffic-control cameras can also feed images of license plates (and therefore information on individual movement) to a central info clearinghouse.  Call me paranoid if you will (and I will admit freely to a very active imagination), but a very similar system has been in place in London for many years, and I can't imagine that having a similar capability in place wouldn't be of interest to a number of groups currently in power in this Administration.

    by PeterHug on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 02:51:25 PM PDT

    •  Spot On!

      (i) You're right, it runs under Windoze (XP Pro,
      to be exact). I argued early on for Linux, but
      nobody listened to me;

      (ii) This was the whole motivation for taking
      the Signal Section out of CDOT and placing it
      in the Traffic Management Authority. The joke
      is that, the systems have suffered breaks in
      the fiber-optics, due to construction and
      reapair work in the street, and the people
      OEMC hires to watch the screens are retired
      cops, who have a propensity to get comfortable
      and fall asleep at their consoles!

      Makes you feel real safe, don't it?

      by JeffW on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:32:23 PM PDT

•  We don't take the bus

  but we're working on reducing our car usage.

  My city has a bus system, but it's inefficient and not there when people need it. My husband has to use a car to get to work; not only does he have to carry a lot of heavy tools, but there is no transportation between our town and where he works but by car.

  by Alexandra Lynch on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:57:46 AM PDT

•  Seattle Transit Is A Joke

  Mass tranist in the Seattle area is a failure pure and simple.  If you want  to commute into work fromm  the suburbs you are looking at multiple Bus hops.  Not a bus to a light rail or anything effective, just a long trip stuck in traffic on the bus.

  George Will is just another republican in a gated community who doesn't have the guts to say what he really stands for:  "Fuck You I"m Getting Mine"

  by puffy66 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 12:05:40 PM PDT

•  It's simple...

  repeal all the laws regarding maintenance of an "assured clear distance" between you and the car in front of you.  The resulting epidemic of tailgating will increase the traffic density sufficiently without additional lane construction.

  And the concomitant epidemic of road rage-induced homicides may in fact also solve our population problem to boot.

  Seriously, who really expects a myopic, corporatist shill like George to have any ideas that don't conform in every particular to the "slopping at the public trough" mentality of his Republican owners?

  Finally, as far as public transit and population densities goes, the US had a perfectly adequate (= much better than we have today) public transit system in 1900 with a much lower population density than we have today.  Many people would have you believe that this can't be duplicated because of modern development patterns--I think (n.b., NOT supported yet by rigorous analysis) that there is no reason the functional equivalent of the 1900 system of streetcars, ineterurban, and heavy passenger rail couldn't be recreated aside from a constitutive unwillingness on the part of modern Americans to walk a half mile or so every so often.

  by PeterHug on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 02:40:31 PM PDT

•  how about renting little electric cars in cities

  all lined up (like at the airport those luggage carrier things are stacked up for rent) for zipping around cities on your own path, but emitting zero carbons?

  by dotcommodity on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:08:34 AM PDT