Ergo, a congestion pricing scheme makes driving *more* attractive, especially for the wealthy, to the extent that it reduces congestion.
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
Bearing in mind that time is more valuable than money, the goal of a city's transportation policy ought to be to *reduce travel times*...
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...instead of the much more common goal of *increasing travel speeds.* Between 1993 and 2006, in Canada, only one city saw reduced trip time
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
This was Vancouver--travel times to work had *decreased* even though population had grown dramatically.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
During the same time frame, Vancouver had made improvements to its transit network, reducing trip times, while leaving congestion alone.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Contrast with Montreal, which left its transit network alone and tried to fight traffic congestion during the same time frame...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...average commute times increased from 62 minutes to 76 minutes--and there was no comparable population growth to explain it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
if driving, would you prefer a 62 minute commute in heavy traffic, or a 76 minute commute with medium to low traffic?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @David_Mahfood
would be convincing if fighting congestion had actually reduced it--what they got was 76 minutes AND the same congestion
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
ha! Well, in that case... FWIW didn't mean it as a 'gotcha', genuinely curious what's preferable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I know, no worries man--glad you're engaging instead of just taking it at face value!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.