Salvemos Las Lomas Headline Animator

En defensa del patrimonio urbano de la ciudad

Las Lomas de Chapultepec es un fraccionamiento residencial diseñado y desarrollado en los años 20's, sobre las colinas ubicadas al poniente de la ciudad, bajo el concepto urbanistico suburbano americano de la epoca, respetando la orografia y los collados que permiten el drenaje natural y areas de absorcion del agua de lluvia; se le doto con parques, calles amplias y avenidas jardinadas, que siguen las curvas de nivel del terreno, lotes grandes y reglamentaciones para mantener la densidad de construccion baja con mucho jardin, casas abiertas con setos perimetrales bajos en lugar de bardas; se le dotó de varios centros de barrio para alojar comercios y servicios necesarios para los vecinos, a distancias caminables.
Al paso del tiempo, por sus cualidades humanas y urbanisticas intrinsecas, se convirtio en la mejor y mas prestigiada colonia residencial de la ciudad.
A partir de la regencia del Sr. Hank, y como consecuencia del cambio al uso del suelo en las 7 manzanas entre la Fuente de Petroleos y Prado Sur/Prado Norte, autorizado sin consultar a los vecinos y aprovechado por el mismo, inicia el deterioro y la destruccion de la colonia; se construyen edificios de oficinas, que trajeron poblacion flotante, muchos autos y con estos comercio informal y ambulante, los cuidacoches, invasion de las calles con autos estacionados durante todo el dia, y la saturacion del transporte publico.
Simultaneamente, en Bosques de las Lomas, cambian el uso de suelo a los lotes del circuito Ciruelos y Duraznos, autorizando edificios de oficina, con identicas consecuencias. La apertura del puente de Monte Libano a Tecamachalco primero, el de Cofre de Perote después y el llamado Puente Viejo, permitieron la invasion de la colonia por miles de autos de residentes en Tecamachalco, La Herradura, y mas recientemente Interlomas y los desarrollos inmobiliarios en esa zona del estado de Mexico, colonias desarrolladas sin planeacion urbana integral, sin dotarlas con vias de acceso independientes y perimetrales a Lomas de Chapultepec y Cuajimalpa. En el colmo de falta de planeacion, se desarrolla Santa Fe/Bosque de Lilas sin las vias de acceso necesarias, ni servicio de trasporte publico adecuado, y las calles de acceso, existentes desde hace años, no se arreglan para que opere un transporte publico de calidad y asi absorber parte del aforo vehicular que transita entre el sur poniente y Santa Fe/Lilas, sin ingresar a las Lomas, por tal motivo todos los automoviles atraidos a estos desarrollos son obligados a transitar por Paseo de la Reforma, Palmas y Virreyes, Constituyentes/Observatorio desde y hacia el Periferico, unica via para llevarlos al norte hacia Ciudad Satelite o al sur hacia San Jeronimo y Viaducto al oriente.
El problema tiene solución, pero ésta no es ampliar vialidades ni hacer obras que incentiven y faciliten la movilidad en automovil con 1 ocupante, sino en ofrecer transporte publico de calidad que transporta 200 personas por autobus y hacer que quien causa el congestionamiento, el automovilista, pague por ello, en beneficio de los mas.

domingo, 30 de septiembre de 2012

Un Glosario para los Presuntuosos cronistas de la Arquitectura Streetscapes

Media_httpgraphics8ny_arjnb

 

sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2012

El costo de usar el auto

El costo de usar el auto

Usar el auto es caro; no solo desde el punto de vista de quien lo conduce, más bien desde una perspectiva social, económica, ambiental. Reducir el uso del auto es posible, siempre y cuando el gobierno realice un cobro justo en el precio de la gasolina; ponga una tarifa de estacionamiento en las calles; construya redes eficientes de transporte público; cree condiciones para la movilidad en bicicleta y edifique caminos seguros para los peatones. No avanzar en la reducción del uso del auto incrementará los costos de todo tipo que actualmente todos pagamos, sobre todo si se tiene en cuenta que al 2030 en México el parque vehicular privado alcanzará 70 millones, cuando en el 2011 alcanzó 26.4 millones de unidades.

De acuerdo con la Asociación Mexicana de Distribuidores de Automotores (Amda), el parque vehicular del País ha aumentado 43% en 6 años al pasar de 18.4 millones de unidades en 2005 a 26.4 millones en 2011. El Centro de Transporte Sustentable Embarq México (Cts) ha calculado que el parque vehicular privado alcanzará las 70 millones de unidades en 2030.

Si bien se pensaba que el crecimiento del parque automotor estaría limitado a quienes pudieran adquirirlo, la realidad es que también los sectores de bajos ingresos están contribuyendo en la expansión de vehículos. En la pasada década el número de autos en el país creció, principalmente entre la población de menos ingresos, pues “uno de cada cinco hogares en pobreza alimentaria tiene un auto, aunque sea viejo”; la cifra pasó de 116 mil a 554 mil (José Merino, 2012).

El parque vehicular por sí mismo puede no revelar la magnitud de los problemas que ocasiona, sino su uso. Justamente en este aspecto, el Instituto de Políticas para el Transporte y el Desarrollo (ITDP) revela que los recorridos en auto particular en la metrópoli pasaron de 30 millones en 1990 a 84 millones en 2010. A nivel país los kilómetros/vehículo recorridos pasaron de 106 en 1990 a 339 en 2010.

Usar el auto cuesta. ITDP y CTS-Embarq Mexico han aportado la siguiente información agregada a nivel nacional sobre los costos de usar el auto: por pérdidas de tiempo, 200 mmdp anuales; muertes asociadas a la mala calidad del aire, 14,700 en 2008; muertes y heridos por accidentes de tránsito, 24 mil y 40 mil, respectivamente; generación de gases de efecto invernadero causantes del fenómeno de cambio climático, 18%.

De acuerdo con el estudio Transformando la movilidad urbana en México, en la metrópoli del Valle de México los accidentes, la congestión, la contaminación local, el ruido y los gases de efecto invernadero, por el uso del automóvil, arrojaron un costo de 121 mil 930 mdp anuales, 4.6 por ciento de su producto interno bruto. La congestión vehicular tiene un costo de 82,163 mdp; la contaminación, 14,396 mdp; los accidentes, 10,332 mdp; la generación de ruido, 8,320 mdp, y la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero, 6,718 mdp. El congestionamiento vial en el Distrito Federal equivale cada año a unos 33 mmdp (alrededor de $2,450 millones de dólares), estima el Centro de Transporte Sustentable.

Reducir el uso del auto sí es posible pero se requiere trabajar en mejorar la infraestructura peatonal; impulsar el uso de la bicicleta en viajes cortos, de hasta 5 kilómetros; establecer un Sistema de Transporte Publco de alta calidad, eficacia y cobertura total, que planee y coordine los servicios de todos los medios de transporte, que organice las conexiones entre modos de transporte; establecer tarifas de servicio que reflejen el costo real del servicio que pueden compensarse permitiendo las transferencias intermodales sin costo y otrogando subsidios personales focalizados acordes con los diferentes segmentos socioeconómicos que lo usan

Esto es posible si se internalizan los costos de usar el auto: 

  • Se elimina el subsidio a la gasolina y se etiqueta una parte de los ingresos por venta de combustibles a la mejora del transporte público urbano; 
  • Se establece un impuesto de $1x Lt, a la venta de combustibles etiquetados a financiar los Sistemas de Transporte Publico, de la poblacion donde se generan; 
  • Selimina la obligacion de ofrecer estacionamiento gratuito, 
  • Se cobra el estacionamiento en calle en toda la ciudad, aplicando 1/3 de los ingresos al transporte publico, 1/3 a mejoras al espacio publico y 1/3 al operador del servicio y 
  • Se liberan las tarifas a los estacionamientos cerrados
  • Se establece un impuesto anual por cada espacio de estacionamiento para autos en edificios y comercios, etiquetados al Transporte Publico 
  • Se cobra por el uso de infraestructura fisica vial, 
  • Se establece el pago de un derecho o tarifa por emisión de gases contaminantes, 

 version modificada y ampliada del articulo aparecido en Ciudadanos en Red

@Ciudadanosenred

jueves, 27 de septiembre de 2012

Reforma en Zonificacion: Negociando con las Audiencias claves | PlaceMakers

Grave problema es la Norma 26 - puede afectar a cualquier colonia.

Cada colonia tiene diferentes problemas y su propia “agenda”, pero todos los vecinos de lo que se conoce como “corredor las Águilas” (desde Barranca del Muerto hasta Villa Verdún) tenemos un problema en común: El cambio arbitrario de uso de suelo por parte de las autoridades.

Hay muchos vecinos interesados, luchando contra esta arbitrariedad a través de excelentes iniciativas. En internet y redes sociales hay grupos (Facebook) y cuentas (Twitter) dedicadas a difundir información relacionada a la problemática de cada colonia.

Existen asociaciones civiles y comités ciudadanos –algunos más comprometidos que otros- que incluso están promoviendo  juicios y denuncias. El objetivo de este “Blog” es formar una red de vecinos que integre a todos a fin de trabajar organizadamente para sumar esfuerzos y mantener informados a todos los afectados.

Concretamente ¿cuál es el problema?

- Se modificó arbitrariamente el uso de suelo de nuestras colonias en el 2011 (Programa de Desarrollo Delegacional para Álvaro Obregón), tratando las autoridades de legitimarlo con una amañada consulta a los ciudadanos que data de 2004.

El cambio arbitrario al uso de suelo, al que se refieren las mantas colocadas por los vecinos, ha convertido nuestro entono urbano en auténtico caos.

El actual uso de suelo permite el establecimiento de comercios sobre la Calz. de las Águilas y la Av. Gutiérrez Zamora, así como la construcción de edificios departamentales en cualquier calle del corredor, provocando cada vez más que en donde había una vivienda, se construyan edificios de departamentos con la misma infraestructura ya insuficiente.

- Los accesos a nuestras colonias son limitados: Barranca del Muerto y las Flores por el oriente, el Eje 5 Poniente por el norte y Villa Verdún por el poniente.

- La Av. Rómulo O’ Farril, la Av. Gutiérrez Zamora y la Calle de Fujiyama, desembocan en Calzada de las Águilas que es la única vía de circulación a lo largo del corredor.

- La construcción de “los puentes” de los Poetas convirtió en vías de tránsito para acceso a Santa Fe las angostas calles que fueron planeadas solamente para uso interno.

- La circulación por las Calzadas de las Águilas y de los Leones es cada día más lenta, la apertura de nuevas escuelas, comercios y edificios de oficinas está generando un auténtico caos vial.

-También nos afectará el controvertido y caótico proyecto de construir en Santa Fe (en el predio “La Mexicana”) 5 mil 500 departamentos (25 mil nuevos habitantes).

No está claro si serán de interés social o residencial. Cualquiera que sea el caso, es seguro que no utilizarán la “Supervía” (de paga). Adivina ¿cuál será la vía de acceso para los 25 mil nuevos habitantes de Santa Fe?  Evidentemente la Calzada de las Águilas, de un solo carril para cada sentido.

- Se decretó la Norma de Ordenación número 26 (Norma 26), “para Incentivar la Producción de Vivienda Sustentable, de Interés Social y Popular”, la cual representa una verdadera amenaza para nuestra tranquilidad, pues permite la construcción de edificios de departamentos, donde hoy hay una sola casa. Con ello se depreciarán considerablemente las propiedades adquiridas a costos elevados cuando contaban con otro tipo de uso de suelo.

Las obras de alta densidad permitidas en la Calzada de las Águilas y en la Av. Gutiérrez Zamora: una vivienda por cada 33 metros cuadrados de terreno, y las autorizadas al amparo de la Norma 26 traerán como consecuencia un severo incremento de la demanda de transporte público, generando más caos vial sobre la Calz. de las Águilas y en las angostas calles de nuestras colonias.

-Sumado a lo anterior, tenemos problemas de obras irregulares como la de Calz. de las Águilas 111 (70 viviendas) en la que hay evidentes violaciones a la ley. Los promotores obtuvieron permiso para construir 11,000 metros cuadrados cuando el proyecto que están desarrollando supera los 16,000 metros cuadrados. Por si esto fuera poco, todavía no cuentan con la autorización del estudio de impacto urbano al que se está obligado cuando se pretende construir más de 10,000 metros cuadrados.

A pesar de juicios ante el Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo y de numerosas gestiones ante la Delegación Álvaro Obregón, la Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano, la Procuraduría Ambiental y de Ordenamiento Territorial y del Instituto de Verificación Administrativa del Distrito Federal, realizados por miles de vecinos durante más de un año, a la fecha no se ha logrado frenar esta obra. Tampoco se ha logrado hacer que la constructora (Promotora de Hogares K C, S. A. de C.V. y Sociedades Copropietarias o Plus Grupo Inmobiliario, S. A. de C. V.) ni el Director Responsable de la Obra, Ing. Arq. Oscar González Chávez, cumplan con la ley.

Por el contrario, ya han iniciado la venta, buscando que los compradores resulten terceros perjudicados en los complicados procesos legales que ya se han entablado.

¿Te das cuenta de la gravedad del asunto?

Necesitamos que te unas a nuestra causa, que coloques tu manta y que te registres en la base de datos de Vecinos de las Águilas Unidos¡Solo así podremos salvar nuestro entorno urbano!

Por lo anterior, los Vecinos de las Águilas Unidos pedimos:

a) Al Ing. Arq. Oscar González Chávez, Director Responsable de Obra en Águilas 111, revise sus responsabilidades ante la ley y su contrato laboral pues se han iniciados pleitos legales y denuncias en su contra.

b) A la Asociación Mexicana de Directores Responsables de Obra y Corresponsables A.C. (AMDROC A.C.) y al Ing. Rafael Alberto Forsbach Prieto, su Presidente, revisar el proceder de sus agremiados a fin de que respeten la Ley.

c) La intervención del Jefe de Gobierno actual Lic. Marcelo Ebrard C. y del electo Dr. Miguel Angel Mancera para que tomen cartas en el asunto y den solución definitiva a estos asuntos.

d) La URGENTE intervención del INVEADF y del Ing. Meyer Klip Gervitz (twitter @meyerkg) para “esclarecer” el tema de Águilas 111 pues estamos en el entendido de que tanto la Delegación Álvaro Obregón como SEDUVI conocen el caso, sin embargo YA ESTAN VENDIENDO ocasionando que los compradores se sumen al problema como terceros afectados.

e) La correcta impartición de justicia por parte de los magistrados del Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo del DF, no cediendo a presiones de constructores voraces que buscan el lucro desmedido y por encima de todo, aun a costa del enorme daño que causan a los actuales residentes.

e) Sobretodo, pedimos a los vecinos del corredor Águilas que se sumen y apoyen a quienes están trabajando para defender nuestro entorno urbano

¿Quién puede sumarse?

Todos los vecinos y propietarios de predios en las colonias que integran y colindan con el corredor las águilas no solo pueden, sino DEBEN sumarse pues la modificación arbitraria al uso de suelo amenaza su patrimonio.

¿Qué se está haciendo al respecto?

Como ya dijimos, ya hay una estrategia a corto, mediano y largo plazo. Las asociaciones y comités ya están en contacto con las autoridades competentes (Delegación Álvaro Obregón, SEDUVI, SEDUE, etc.) y están tomando acciones en diferentes vertientes:

Detener obras que violan los derechos de los vecinos como la de Calzada de las Águilas No. 111, promover juicios  y pedir a las autoridades que “regresen” el uso de suelo anterior al cambio arbitrario.

Evitar que la Norma 26 se aplique al polígono integrado a las colonias Águilas, Alpes, Ampliación Alpes y Águilas-Pilares.

¿Cómo puedo participar?

La única forma de lograr algo, es uniéndonos. Necesitamos que las autoridades se den cuenta de que TODOS los vecinos estamos dispuestos a defender nuestro patrimonio, nuestro entorno urbano y nuestro derecho a ser tomados en cuenta para que no se cometan más arbitrariedades.

A través de este blog (aguilasunidos.wordpress.com) estaremos promoviendo acciones concretas para apoyar, informando avances, convocando a reuniones, solicitando firmas de adhesión a juicios, generando información para difundir y actualizándola constantemente.

CONCRETA Y URGENTEMENTE:

- Difunde  este blog entre los vecinos afectados (por mail, twitter,  facebook, enlaces desde tu página y/o blog)

-  Regístrate (tu y todos los adultos que vivan en tu domicilio) en la base de datos de  VECINOS DE LAS ÁGUILAS UNIDOS. Solo tejiendo una red de vecinos organizados y comunicados tendremos la fuerza para defendernos.

Coloca una manta (lona) manifestando que REPROBAMOS la Norma 26 y pidiendo “regresar” al uso de suelo que teníamos.

Ya hay mantas por toda la zona, de diferentes tamaños, formas y diseños hechos por cada vecino. Esto reduce el impacto pues hay que “detenerse” a leer (algunas retacadas de información) para saber de qué se trata.

Para incrementar el impacto, en adelante  utilizaremos un diseño ÚNICO de manera que quien transita por la colonia, con solo ver los colores sepa que TODAS las mantas hacen referencia al mismo tema.

Aquí está el diseño, el costo (en diferentes tamaños) y los datos de un impresor muy formal y comprometido (vecino de las águilas)

Imprime el volante informativo de la Norma 26 invitando a los vecinos a sumarse a nuestro esfuerzo, saca copias, córtalas a la mitad (dos por hoja carta) y repártelo entre tus vecinos.

Sigue y participa en éste blog para recibir notificaciones por correo cada vez que se actualice.

- Difunde éste blog por mail, twitter, facebook.

Participa con comentarios y propuestas (por respeto a la privacidad los correos electrónicos no se publican ).

Asiste a las juntas (se convocará por este medio y por correo a los vecinos registrados en la base de datos).

- ¿Tienes twitter?  Sigue, “Retuitea” y provoca más retuits de la cuenta @AguilasUnidos utilizando los hash tags #AguilasUnidos  #NoNorma26 y #NoAguilas111

- ¿Tienes Facebook? Únete al grupo “Águilas Unidos” e invita a todos tus amigos que sean vecinos de la zona.

IMPORTANTE:

Vecinos de las Águilas Unidos es  una organización de vecinos comprometidos. NO es partidista. Pedimos soluciones inmediatas y definitivas a quien corresponda darlas y buscamos el apoyo de quien se interese en defender nuestros derechos, sin importar su filiación política.

Algunas notas relacionadas:

http://www.vivaelsur.mx/2011/12/buscaran-revocacion-de-permisos-de-2-obras-en... (Águilas 111)

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/05/18/capital/041n1cap (“La Mexicana”)

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/847951.html (“La Mexicana”)

.

Registro de Vecinos

Me gusta:

One blogger likes this.
  • aguilasunidos

Insoportable Tráfico (Primera de Tres partes) - En busca de ciudades sustentables:

lunes, 24 de septiembre de 2012

Calculadora de C02

HOME IBEDROLA

Calcula cuánto CO2emites en tus desplazamientos

Cambiar nuestros hábitos de transporte es la vía más eficaz para conseguir una movilidad sostenible. Sustituir el coche por el transporte público o la bicicleta, o compartir el vehículo son dos sencillos hábitos que te permitirán reducir tus emisiones.

¡Utiliza nuestra calculadora de emisiones con las distintas alternativas!

En verdad tiene conciencia ambiental?, Sabes cuanto contribuyes al Calentamiento Global con tu medio preferido de movilidad?, Estas dispuesto a reducir tu huella de CO2 cambiando tu medio de transporte?

domingo, 23 de septiembre de 2012

Presentaciones del Foro Internacional sobre el Derechos a la Movilidad

 

 

 

twitter

 

facebook

 

 

 

Para quienes no pudieron asistir al Foro, ver las grabaciones hechas de cada intervencion.

sábado, 22 de septiembre de 2012

El INEGI no acepta mi respuesta...100% acertada


El INEGI me visitó, me entrevistó y no aceptó mi respuesta a la siguiente pregunta:

¿Cuantas personas dependen de ud.? 

Contesté:

  • 3.5 millones de burócratas en la administración publica federal (sin contar los aviadores)...aparte de los burócratas en los Estados, Municipios, Ciudades y el resto de las poblaciones del país.
  • 800,000 empledos de CFE a los cuales les pagamos el consumo de energía electrica de sus casas, en las cuales tienen aires acondicionados, estufas ectricas, boilers eléctricos.
  • 250,000 presos en 58 centros de detención para menores, 438 centros penitenciarios, 4 de máxima seguridad, etc. (62% de los reclusos ingresaron por delitos "famélicos", -ocasionados por el hambre y miseria-, 28% son realmente enfermos con alguna adicción que los obligo a delinquir y solo 10% son criminales inveterados)
  • Los realmente peligrosos y desalmados son parte del gobierno y partidos políticos y estan afuera con fuero.
  • 500 Diputados, la Cámara de Diputados con 500 curules (asientos) 300 son de mayoría relativa (votados) y 200 son de representación proporcional (son elegidos indirectamente y dependen del número de sufragios que tenga cada partido las listas de estos Diputados las conforman 30 nombres y en la práctica entran a la cámara entre 15 y 20 por partido)
  • 128 sanguijuelas del Senado desglosados por partido político:
  • Partido Acción Nacional 52
  • Partido Revolucionario Institucional 33
  • Partido de la Revolución Democrática 26
  • Partido Verde Ecologista de México 6
  • Partido del Trabajo 5
  • Convergencia 5
  • Nueva Alianza 
  • Total 128
  • 31 Gobernadores, sus familias, amigos, condiscípulos, etc.
  • 2,500 Presidentes Municipales con el etcétera consabido.”
 

Siendo 100% acertada, mi respuesta NO fue aceptada.... 

¿ Me ayudas a discernir en qué erré ?
Ah, creo que omiti a los 
Zánganos Maestros de OAXACA, MICHOACAN, CHIAPAS y a los 22 mil comisionados aviadores del SNTE.

Parece broma, pero asi es...

El INEGI no acepta mi respuesta, que es 100% acertada


El INEGI
 me visitó, me entrevistó  y no quiso aceptar mi respuesta...
 Me hizo la siguiente pregunta:
¿Cuantas personas dependen de ud.?

Contesté:

“3.5 millones de burócratas en la administración publica federal (sin
contar los aviadores)...aparte de los burócratas en los Estados,
Municipios, Ciudades y el resto de las poblaciones del país.


800,000 empledos de CFE a los cuales les pagamos el consumo de energ
ía electrica de sus casas, en las cuales tienen aires acondicionados,
estufas e
ctricas, boilers eléctricos.


250,000 presos en 58 centros de detención para menores, 438 centros
penitenciarios, 4 de s
uper máxima seguridad etc. con el 62% de los
reclusos recluidos por delitos "famélicos", es decir ocasionados por
el hambre y la miseria, 28% son realmente enfermos con alguna adicción
que los obligo a delinquir y solo el 10% son criminales inveterados...
los realmente peligrosos y desalmados forman parte de los partidos
políticos.

500 Diputados, la Cámara de Diputados con 500 curules (asientos) 300
son de mayoría relativa (votados) y 200 son de representación
proporcional (son elegidos indirectamente y dependen del n
úmero de
sufragios que tenga cada partido las listas de estos Diputados las
conforman 30 nombres y en la pr
áctica entran a la cámara entre 15 y 20
por partido)

128 sanguijuelas del Senado desglosados por partido político:
Partido Acción Nacional 52
Partido Revolucionario Institucional 33
Partido de la Revolución Democrática 26
Partido Verde Ecologista de México 6
Partido del Trabajo 5

Convergencia 5
Nueva Alianza 1
Total 128
31 Gobernadores, sus familias, amigos, condiscípulos, etc.
2,500 Presidentes Municipales con el etcétera consabido.”

Mi respuesta NO fue aceptada....


Ayúdame a conocer en qué me equivoqué
Creo que me faltaron los Maestros Zánganos de OAXACA, MICHOACAN, CHIAPAS
 y los aviadores del SNTE.

Parece broma, pero asi es...

Los Principios de Movilidad Para la Vida Urbana; van mejor juntos

itdp-8principios-movilidadurbana.pdf Download this file

Ideas Locas - Eliminar las señales y semaforos en las intersecciones del centro, para convertir el crucero en espacio compartido

viernes, 21 de septiembre de 2012

Transeúnte » Día mundial sin autos 2012

Consecuencias indeseables de los requisitos de minimos espacios de Estacionamiento « City Block

Surface parking in Minneapolis. CC image from Zach K.

Writing in MinnPost, Marlys Harris asks why (seemingly) nothing is getting done in Minneapolis. She comes up with three broad reasons: a negative attitude towards new development, economic justifications that don’t pencil out for new projects, and the impact of zoning and land use regulations – often unintended impacts or perverse outcomes. While all three are certainly factors, the real interesting implication is the interplay between them: as an example, regulations that dictate long and uncertain processes, enabling those opposed to new development to organize in opposition, thereby adding time and cost to a building project to the point where it’s no longer feasible.

In the comments, Max Musicant offers an example of these chain reactions on the regulatory side:

[T]he zoning code is very often in conflict with how multi-story buildings are actually built – which also drives the almost constant demand for variances. If one wants to build a multi-story building, you are required to provide an elevator. If you need an elevator, you need to build 4-6 stories to spread out the cost. If you are building that high, you will likely be required to build parking on-site. If you have to build parking on-site in an urban location, it will have to be underground – which is very expensive. All of this can be avoided only if 1) you build one story suburban style or 2) your price points are affordable only to the wealthy.

The parking requirements are particularly onerous. Oregon Public Broadcasting took note of parking-less apartment building projects in Portland back in August. New buildings are going up without off-street parking, taking advantage of a change in the zoning code that allows exemptions from parking requirements under certain conditions. While the article’s narrative focuses on the kinds of people who would live without a car or without a designated parking space, this cultural focus is misplaced – as Max Musicant noted later in his comment, these kind of walk-up apartment buildings without off-street parking were commonly constructed in American cities in the not-so-distant past.

The real takeaway from the OPB piece isn’t about the behavior of the tenants, but of the impact on the bottom line of the builders:

One of those developers is Dave Mullens with the Urban Development Group. He opened the Irvington Garden in a close-in Northeast Portland neighborhood last year. It’s 50 units with no parking places.

“The cost of parking would make building this type of project on this location unaffordable,” Mullens says.

Mullens calls the difference “tremendous.”

“Parking a site is the difference between a $750 apartment and a $1,200 apartment. Or, the difference between apartments and condos,” he says.

In other words, these kinds of regulations have severe costs. Taking Mullens’s price figure at face value, it’s not hard to see how removing a requirement like this would help market rate development target demand at lower price points. Likewise, it’s not hard to see how seemingly narrowly-focused and well-intentioned regulations can have much broader consequences when layered with other constraints.

Of course, these points are all on the micro scale of an individual project, but the macro scale also matters. The regulations have to allow the market to increase supply in order to meet demand – otherwise bad things happen. In the Washington Business Journal, Montgomery and Fairfax counties in metropolitan DC are concerned about housing becoming unaffordable even for those with six figure incomes.

It’s not until the end that simply relaxing zoning requirements to a) increase supply, or b) lower the cost of development (see the parking requirement discussion) is mentioned. The article does not mention option c), all of the above.  Since there would still be a need for deeply affordable dwelling units, relaxing or eliminating parking requirements would be a good place to start in striking the balance between good, well-intentioned, and effective regulations and an efficient marketplace for new development.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

    

 

jueves, 20 de septiembre de 2012

Parque(ando) 2012 - rescatando un espacio de estacionamiento convirtiendolo en un mini parque

Participen, dense una vuelta a tomar un refrigerio, apoyemos a Parque(ando) para rescatar nuestra ciudad de la dominacion del auto 

Parqueando_web_blanco

El Estudio de los Codigos | PlaceMakers

miércoles, 19 de septiembre de 2012

El Problema de los Minimos de Estacionamiento en edificios y comercios

El Dr. Donald Shoup escribe un ensayo para el Victoria Transport Policy Institute sobre el problema que representan las regulaciones que marcan los espacios minimos de estacionamiento para edificios y para establecimientos mercantiles.

Los parametros son totalmente arbitrarios y absurdos, y lo unico que logran es crear una oferta excesiva de estacionamiento que disminuye la rentabilidad de las inversiones hechas y alienta el uso del auto y con esto los congestionamientos de trafico.

Ademas de que es una disposicion que promueve la inequidad, al hacer que quienes no usan coche deban de pagar los precios mas altos que deben cobrar los comerciantes o dueños de las propiedades inmobiliarias por las mercancias, los servicios y los espacios que ofrecen al publico, ya que los espacios de estacionamiento tienen un costo, y no pequeño, y dicho costo debe amortizarse y generar los rendimientos de mercado. 

The_trouble_with_minimum_parking.pdf Download this file

Como hacer Parklets de espacios de estacionamiento

Check out this website I found at its.ucla.edu

Parqueando, una idea para rescatar espacios de estacionamiento transformandolos en espacios jardinados y amables para el peaton, donde se congregue la comunidad a interactuar e intercambiar experiencias y conocerse mejor. Donde jueguen los niños, se sienten los abuelos, jueguen los adultos, y los paseantes puedan compartir del gozo de una calle con trafico calmado.

Transeúnte » Del mito al hecho: Ciudades del futuro y obra pública

Media_httpmexicotrans_ofwfi

Un buen analisis sobre el problema actual y las consecuencias futuras de no corregir el paradigma

Transeúnte » Un puñado de edificios

Media_httpmexicotrans_beklf

¿Cual seria tu lista de los 20 mejores ejemplos de arquitectura Mexicana?

martes, 18 de septiembre de 2012

“Me Fui de Shopping… A los Vagones del Metro” | Sin Embargo

Media_httpwwwsinembar_iiemo

Una de las tareas pendientes para ener una operacion eficiente y segura y un viaje menos agresivo para los usuarios del Metro es la eliminacion de los vendedores ambulantes tanto dentro de los vagones como en los pasillos, accesos y areas circundantes a las estaciones del Metro.

lunes, 17 de septiembre de 2012

La importancia de invertir en movilidad sustentable » Transeúnte

Media_httpmexicotrans_jhyrw

Urge crear el Sistema Integrado y Coordinado de Transporte Publico, que incluya a todos los medios existentes. La dispersion de la operacion en concesiones independientes y autonomas es caotico e impide la planeacion y programacion integral, aprovechando las sinergias y el parque vehicular.

viernes, 14 de septiembre de 2012

Aprendiendo a Amar el Congestionamiento | Planetizen

Media_httpwwwplanetiz_usslt

Por decadas, el Sistema de Clasificacion Funcional, y su enfasis en acomodar prioritariamente el movimiento vehicular, ha sido la base sobre la cual las calles urbanas de EU han sido diseñadas y construidas.

jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2012

Lo Viejo es Nuevo otra vez, al ofrecer Mercados y Calles una avenida compartida para construir Ciudades mas Sanas | Planetizen

Media_httpwwwplanetiz_rgell

Los Mercados Publicos y las Calles multi usos vienen desde los origenes de las ciudades. De algun modo el siglo XX presencio como las ciudades del mundo abandonaban estas cualidades basicas de la vida urbana en tanto el suburbio, el automovil y la comida industrializada alteraban la trayectoria del panorama nacional y la salud publica. Hoy el Proyecto para los Espacios Publicos promueve que esta antigua costumbre renazca y se convierta en lo nuevo, ayudando a comunidades a encontrar maneras creativas de vigorizar su entorno y sus economias mediante proyectos de creacion de lugares publicos (placemaking).

miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2012

Demanda Inducida es como Fast Food Gratis - Comment of the week

Roads


Comment of the week: Induced demand is free fast food

by David Alpert   •   September 4, 2012 3:11 pm

In a lively comment debate over Herb Caudill's article on car depen­dence, some readers argued that "induced demand," the principle that new or wider roads rarely relieve congestion, is no reason to eschew major highway projects; rather, this just shows latent consumer demand for more lane miles. Reader Jacob raised a thought-provoking analogy:


Photo by 5thLuna on Flickr.

Let's give everyone free McDonald's hamburgers. Let's put 10,000 hamburgers a day on a table in front of the Capitol (or wherever).

What would happen? People would take and eat the hamburgers, and once word got out, all 10,000 hamburgers would be taken very quickly every day. We may thus infer that because people need food and they really seemed to like those burgers, McDonald's hamburgers are an important public good.

A city planner might notice a problem: those 10,000 hamburgers just aren't enough. They get taken very early in the morning, so not everybody has a chance to get a hamburger. The obvious solution—because burgers are a highly-valued public good—is to provide more free burgers. So the city planner starts to provide 20,000 hamburgers a day.

You can see where this is going. People start going out of their way to get the free hamburgers, and planning their day around that trip. The city has to keep providing more and more free burgers—eventually millions a day—to keep satisfying the demand for free hamburgers. The competing food markets crater, because who would pay $2/lb for apples when you can get as many free burgers as you want (although maybe you have to wait in a 30-minute line).

Public health goes to hell, because everybody's eating six burgers a day. And yet, everybody likes their free burgers and the Hamburger Department is an untouchable political powerhouse. Proposals for a 10-cent hamburger fee to cover the huge costs of hamburger provision get shot down by public outrage.

What's the problem here? The problem is that food is indeed a necessity, and yes, people seem to like McDonald's hamburgers—but the fact that people will take free burgers does not prove that they are "highly valued" by the market. We are not seeing actual demand for burgers. We are seeing induced demand for a good which is being provided at artificially low prices.

But for some reason, replace hamburgers with roads and everybody goes nuts.

In short, the fact that a new lane or road immediately fills up with traffic does not "prove" that there was a high demand for that road—it proves that people will use way too much of something that's free.

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

 

is this the opposite of the efficient markets thesis?

by charlie on Sep 4, 2012 3:29 pm • linkreport

Moreover,

Most of us transit advocates understand that at every level there is induced demand for any mode of travel and that at some level transit can reach that level with regards to expanded capacity. The key is that that threshold is often reached much faster by adding car lanes rather than a transit alternative.

Studying induced demand is valuable. Ascribing a positive or negative value isn't the point.

tl;dr - remember that induced demand is a way to frame rather than an end to acheive or avoid.

by drumz on Sep 4, 2012 3:33 pm • linkreport

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by bob on Sep 4, 2012 3:34 pm • linkreport

I don't think this analogy really does what you think it does.

Here's one of my own. Fill a balloon with water. Now you can let a small trickle of water come out by squeezing the tip tight, or you can let it out faster by releasing the pressure. The outflow will still "fill up" the exiting diameter, but that does not mean there is more water back in the balloon.

by Hubert on Sep 4, 2012 3:36 pm • linkreport

Also I look forward to an endless tweaking of analogies rather than a discussion of how much import we should give to induced demand when it comes to transportation planning.

by drumz on Sep 4, 2012 3:38 pm • linkreport

there are two issues - induced demand, and proper pricing.

Even if the roads were priced correctly, there could be induced demand. And otoh, even if roads were not priced correctly, some induced trips will have signficant postive value, possibly above their social cost.

oh and a third issue - externalities (healthy apples vs unhealthy hamburgers)

Each issue is interesting, but Im not sure mixing them adds to the discussion.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 4, 2012 3:41 pm • linkreport

I like the analogy. Thanks.

by NikolasM on Sep 4, 2012 3:42 pm • linkreport

To make your argument stronger, you need to explain why lane miles are like hamburgers (unhealthy) and not vegatables (healthy). Obviously, we want to induce demand for veggies and subsidizing them isn't a bad idea.

One could argue that lane-miles lead to economic growth so it's a good type of induced demand. Or, one could argue that lane-miles lead to sub-optimal sprawling type growth. In that case, instead of inducing lane-mile demand, we should induce transit demand since it leads to smart growth.

Or, a better argument is that inducing demand for biking and walking is more like inducing demand for veggies and inducing demand for lane-miles is more like burgers -- contributing to our obesity epidemic.

by Falls Church on Sep 4, 2012 3:43 pm • linkreport

This greatly exaggerates the growth.

The analogy assumes that, starting with 10,000 free hamburgers per day, this will grow at least 200-fold to meet the entire food demand of the city.

Nobody thinks "induced demand" of the road network will grow by a factor of 200-fold. Historical road use growth is on the order of 4x that of the original design. Any more growth, and traffic on the roads is so bad that it essentially collapses.

by goldfish on Sep 4, 2012 3:46 pm • linkreport

What this county needs is a good five cents cigar.

by charlie on Sep 4, 2012 3:48 pm • linkreport

I think what's important to separate this from "latent demand" is that the hamburgers (or roads) change people and society so that everything is restructured around free hamburgers (roads).

For example, people would move to D.C. for free hamburgers, because their food budget would be much lower than living in, say, New York. They would reduce their consumption of other foods, and become reliant on hamburgers. They would adjust their work schedules to get the most free hamburgers possible.

Simply put, when you throw something like this into the mix, society becomes dependent on it. That is where you induce demand.

by Tim on Sep 4, 2012 3:52 pm • linkreport

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by fred on Sep 4, 2012 3:54 pm • linkreport

Do the critics of Dave Alpert's analogy dislike it because they actually dislike where the logic leads (a reasonable inference from fred's comment)? Even though I avoid arguments from analogy generally, this one makes good sense to me.

by Steve on Sep 4, 2012 4:03 pm • linkreport

To be clear, it's not my analogy, but Jacob's.

by David Alpert on Sep 4, 2012 4:06 pm • linkreport

I think this analogy actually highlights the problem with induced demand as quoted in the original piece ("A new lane or a new freeway never reduces congestion in the long run: People respond to new capacity by driving more or by living or working in previously remote places, and you're very quickly back where you started and have to build still more.").

I think anyone who understands anything about economics would be shocked to find that 20,000 free burgers are consumed exactly like 10,000 free burgers are. In other words, the same number of people miss out on the free burgers, the burgers are handed out in exactly the same amount of time each day, everyone is no better or worse off under either scenario, etc.

But the induced demand theory in the original post claims this is how roads work (i.e., "a new freeway never reduces congestion" and "you are quickly back to where you started").

I think it's much more complicated than this and induced demand theory is some silly theory that people thought up who were too lazy (or too self-interested) to really take a hard look at what is happening.

by Greg on Sep 4, 2012 4:14 pm • linkreport

This was awesome. Also, can we release the hamburgers at the White House, or in Meridian Hill Park or something a little closer to my home and/or office? :)

by Oy Vey on Sep 4, 2012 4:22 pm • linkreport

I like the fact that handing out 10,000 hamburgers at the Capitol would create a huge traffic jam ;-)

by Jasper on Sep 4, 2012 4:23 pm • linkreport

Greg: The argument is not that nobody benefits from using the road, but rather than the existing drivers, the ones who are mostly complaining about traffic, don't benefit.

To use this analogy, let's say a lot of people want to go get hamburgers at 10:30 am because they can't go earlier. The hamburger handout starts at 9 and they're out by 10. They write to their elected officials and say, please double the hamburgers, because then there will be enough at 10:30.

But then, news of the hamburger expansion goes into the papers, and a lot of people start going at 9 who weren't going because the lines were too long, or they change jobs to one near the hamburgers, and now they're still out by 10:30.

That's what I wrote in http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-outer-beltway-the-bad-idea-that-wont-go-away/2011/12/07/gIQAk8J8yO_story.html">this op-ed. Someone would use an Outer Beltway, but it's not the people who are driving in Fairfax today and find traffic frustrating. Instead, the Outer Beltway will trigger lots of residential development in what's now farmland, and many people will move to that area who don't live there today, and fill up the road.

The traffic will get worse, not better, for current residents. Plus, we'll lose the farmland, the negative environmental benefits will result, and so on.

by David Alpert on Sep 4, 2012 4:26 pm • linkreport

I'm not sure that the analogy proves that induced demand can never be satisfied. The number of hamburgers needed would keep increasing, but only until everybody had enough. At some point, when there are enough for everyone to have one or two per day, demand would level off because people can only eat so much. Similarly, the analogy would suggest that at some point, road capacity would be adequate to meet everyone's needs - people are not going to drive 24/7, no matter how many roads are available.
The point where the analogy really breaks down is in analogizing food to transportation. Should the government be providing everyone with free hamburgers? No, we have a free market that allows people to buy food, and giving away hamburgers is not a proper function of government.
Should the government be providing roads and public transportation? Yes, because that is a public good, which the private sector cannot provide on its own. (Yes, the private sector does build toll roads, but only with the sponsorship of government - we don't have two Dulles Greenways, built by different companies, competing for our business.).

by Mike on Sep 4, 2012 4:26 pm • linkreport

@Falls Church
Or, a better argument is that inducing demand for biking and walking is more like inducing demand for veggies and inducing demand for lane-miles is more like burgers -- contributing to our obesity epidemic.

Exactly. Pretty much everything we do with public money induces demand in some way - put something out there for free or at a low cost and people will use it. The challenge is to decide what the external costs and benefits of the things we want are and subsidize accordingly.

@Mike
Road capacity can be built to exceed the current demand, but the point is that building that extra capacity means that growth will shift toward that extra capacity (because it is easier to travel there) and will use up the extra capacity. You could conceivably overbuild so much that you would be satisfied for 200 years or whatever, but at that point your benefit per dollar of extra spending is extremely small. To the analogy, if you provided enough burgers for everyone in the DC metro area and had tons of extras just being thrown away/not used, wouldn't people from other places start moving here because of all the free food?

The other issue with massive overbuilding is it generates the kind of growth that has more negative impact (more pollution, worse health outcomes, more time traveling, etc.) than the alternative.

by MLD on Sep 4, 2012 4:35 pm • linkreport

Seems as if the induced hamburger demand is much different for an outer beltway than making traffic on reno road work better.

by charlie on Sep 4, 2012 4:43 pm • linkreport

@ Alpert - I actually agree with you that the environmental effects of roads are a concern that should be factored in.

But induced demand theory is used here to support a position that new roads are bad investments without considering any other factor. In other words, highway spending is inherently a waste of resources. That the benefit from the increased development you mention is somehow completely offset merely by congestion.

You also seem to take the theory a step further from claiming that equilibrium will stay the same by saying that "traffic will get worse, not better, for current residents." I suspect that, controlling for other factors, this is not a true statement.

by Greg on Sep 4, 2012 4:49 pm • linkreport

Its the traffic engineer who wants more burgers, not the city planner.

by Steve Harris on Sep 4, 2012 4:50 pm • linkreport

@MLD and @FallsChurch - I think what you are saying is another way of describing transit-oriented development. For example, the Orange Line corridor of Arlington reflects induced demand - the population of that area has grew tremendously after Metro was constructed. Like veggies, this is a healthy type of induced demand, from the standpoint of people who favor denser, more urban and less sprawling development.
If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of it, tax it.

by Mike on Sep 4, 2012 4:52 pm • linkreport

The entire "induced demand" argument is silly. As mentioned above, every method of transit suffers from it. The worst affront to urbanist policy is that the Silverline is reaching within shouting distance of Leesburg, rather than being more productive by expanding transit services in the more populated core. The Silverline will suffer from induced demand, its just misdirected moral outrage that "that" induced demand is fine, while everything else is "bad".

Here is where the real outrage lies. Adding up the cost the regions largest road infrasture projects (Mixing Bowl, Wilson Bridge, ICC, 14th and 11st bridge work, and RT 66 expansion inside and outside the beltway) you get a sum total cost of 6.3 billion. Combined, these roads/bridges carry 1.1 million vehicles a day.

Versus a 6 billion (and counting) heavy rail line to cow pastures that will supposedly serve 50,000 trips per day in another 15 years.

The same cost, yet even assuming each one of those 1.1 million vehicles was just carrying 1 person (and not buses trucks etc) the road projects service 22 times the number of people on a daily basis.

The biggest part of the joke is that the drivers are singlehandedly funding 50% of the construction of this boondoggle through tolls. When again was the last time fares collected from any rail transit rider was used to fund a road project? Never.

Induced demand? Yeah right.

by induced demand on Sep 4, 2012 5:15 pm • linkreport

+1 for adding hamburger lanes to the Beltway.

by aaa on Sep 4, 2012 5:16 pm • linkreport

This analogy is pretty poor on many levels. Roads are not free (people know that they are paid for by taxes and fees); the demand for roads arises not because they are perceived to be free, but because they are a convenient mode of transportation; the public often supports fees and taxes to build new road projects (the AAA supports them as well); and roads are still extremely valuable to social welfare -- claims that they cause "public health to go to hell" are exaggerated at best and specious at worst.

Now, if people knew that road projects were immensely costly and could be convinced that they won't alleviate traffic in the long term, they would probably not support as many road projects. Further, they would probably support fewer road projects if they perceived there to be better alternatives (like transit) in their communities. So this issue really comes down to education and providing workable alternatives.

by Scoot on Sep 4, 2012 5:34 pm • linkreport

Adding up the cost the regions largest road infrasture projects (Mixing Bowl, Wilson Bridge, ICC, 14th and 11st bridge work, and RT 66 expansion inside and outside the beltway) you get a sum total cost of 6.3 billion. Combined, these roads/bridges carry 1.1 million vehicles a day. Versus a 6 billion (and counting) heavy rail line to cow pastures that will supposedly serve 50,000 trips per day in another 15 years.

I might agree with you if our politicians and elected leaders rationalized new or expanded road projects as ways to simply cram more people onto roads. But that's not really the case. Time and time again, we see the rationale to build and expand roads phrased as alleviating congestion. Dollar for dollar, providing capacity of 1.1 million cars for $6.1 billion seems like a success, but the costs are immense: huge amounts of time wasted in traffic. Among the worst traffic in America, in fact.

In the end, people don't really care about capacity, they care about how much time they waste sitting in traffic relative to the convenience of driving.

by Scoot on Sep 4, 2012 6:02 pm • linkreport

Adding up the cost the regions largest road infrasture projects (Mixing Bowl, Wilson Bridge, ICC, 14th and 11st bridge work, and RT 66 expansion inside and outside the beltway) you get a sum total cost of 6.3 billion. Combined, these roads/bridges carry 1.1 million vehicles a day. Versus a 6 billion (and counting) heavy rail line to cow pastures that will supposedly serve 50,000 trips per day in another 15 years.

You don't measure the success of a transportation investment in trips per day. You measure it in ROI -- dollars returned dollar invested. The Silver Line will increase property values in Tysons alone by $10B and will facilitate the creation of 100,000 jobs in Tysons alone. It will also provide infrastructure that will allow another 200,000 residents in Tysons. That's a pretty solid ROI.

The biggest part of the joke is that the drivers are singlehandedly funding 50% of the construction of this boondoggle through tolls.

While that's technically true, you can also think of it as "property owners in the Silver Line corridor are funding 50% of construction". Because most trips on the DTR are from/to property owned by people who are within a few miles of the Silver Line. All of those property owners will see an increase in property values that vastly outstrips the increase in tolls they will pay (or visitors/customers/employees to their property will pay).

by Falls Church on Sep 4, 2012 6:33 pm • linkreport

"You don't measure the success of a transportation investment in trips per day. You measure it in ROI -- dollars returned dollar invested. The Silver Line will increase property values in Tysons alone by $10B and will facilitate the creation of 100,000 jobs in Tysons alone. It will also provide infrastructure that will allow another 200,000 residents in Tysons. That's a pretty solid ROI."
-----

It's interesting to note that even if these numbers are correct (and I suspect they're an exaggeration, as most transit advocate projects are), the most optimistic findings project that the Silver Line will serve only a 50,000 additional daily transit riders - once it's extended out to Loudon. Most of the people who will ride it already take Metro.

Even more intersting is your assertion (or rather admission) that the whole thing is about increasing property values ("ROI" is the lipstick) - in an already prosperous and and affluent area to boot - and providing transportation is merely a by-product. An afterthought.

So, what it comes down to is we're being taxed and tolled to build the Silver Line (at a greater cost than that of the biggest regional road projects combined) to increase property value values for developers, landowners, and homewoners in one of the most affluent areas in the region. All while we rot in traffic.

So the Silver Line is a boondoggle, after all. Especially when one considers that a considerable portion of the additional taxes generated by that "ROI" you speak of will go to paying the rail line's capital, maintenance, and operating costs.

Thanks for clearing that up.

PS,

As for roads "providing no ROI", I would dare say that the high property values in North Arlington have as much to do with access to I-66, I-395, and the GW Parkway as they do with the Orange Line.

by ceefer on Sep 4, 2012 7:18 pm • linkreport

Aren't roads paid for by various taxes and fees (state gasoline tax, federal gasoline tax, income tax collected by the state and federal governments, etc). So technically, you are paying, even if indirectly. And any of these fictional roads we're talking about could set up tolls, so then you would be paying directly.

by Nickyp on Sep 4, 2012 8:44 pm • linkreport

@induced demand your numbers are way off. phase 1 alone is supposed to have 83k daily users by 2030.

by h street ll on Sep 5, 2012 4:20 am • linkreport

"The Silver Line will increase property values in Tysons alone by $10B and will facilitate the creation of 100,000 jobs in Tysons alone. It will also provide infrastructure that will allow another 200,000 residents in Tysons. That's a pretty solid ROI."
----

One more thing:

When all that "ROI" occurs after road construction (as it has already in Tysons and the Dulles Corridor), urbanists call it "sprawl".

by ceefer66 on Sep 5, 2012 7:34 am • linkreport

I like the ROI argument.

If the silver line was NOT built, the development that would have moved to northern Virginia would occur elsewhere, increasing the property values in other neighborhoods in the metropolitan DC area. So by spending NOTHING, the property values EVERYWHERE increase -- question is, by the same proportion?

In any case if the silver line is not built, the RIO = infinity, because the investment was zero. Nice.

by goldfish on Sep 5, 2012 7:54 am • linkreport

ROI?

Wait a second. I thought the entire point of the Silver Line was as a transit alternative. I had no idea this was implicit admission by the "smart growth" set as nothing but a taxpayer freebie to increase private landowner holdings.

And as a resident of the DC area for a lot of years, Tysons has been forcasting an additional 100K residents and 200K jobs since the mid nineties, 7 years prior to the draft EIS for the silverline even being complete so giving it credit for a Tysons transformation is pretty disingenuous, especially considering Tysons residential population increased 80% between 1980 and 2000 which the Silverline had zero to do with. We haven't even discussed the commercial business increase during the same period which again, had nothing to do with metro.

Oh, and lastly...if you are considering ROI, the you also have to consider the economic impact (rather than the transportation of people) of those ~6 billion dollars in road projects and the 1.1 million vehicles per day using them. How much cargo, and goods traverse those projects on a daily basis that wouldn't happen without? Hundreds of million of dollars worth per day? A billion per day.

How much in goods and services does Metro carry every day? I don't know, but I've never seen a grocery store get stocked by a metro train, or a plumber arrive to someones house having taken metro.

Induced demand is a farse unless transit folks are willing to apply it to every method of transit equally, which of course they never are.

There are "smart" transit projects, the Silverline is certainly not one of them.

by induced demand on Sep 5, 2012 8:44 am • linkreport

@ceefer66:
When all that "ROI" occurs after road construction (as it has already in Tysons and the Dulles Corridor), urbanists cry about "sprawl".

Yes, because development from road construction (i.e. sprawl) means more car dependency, which means more car trips, which means more negative impacts of cars. Do you not get the difference in development patterns between 100% car-oriented and not? Seems simple enough.

Even more intersting is your assertion (or rather admission) that the whole thing is about increasing property values ("ROI" is the lipstick) - in an already prosperous and and affluent area to boot - and providing transportation is merely a by-product. An afterthought.

The property value increases come because of the transportation improvements. Again, the property values increase because the project is providing transportation. It's not an afterthought - IT'S CENTRAL!

@induced demand
Here is where the real outrage lies. Adding up the cost the regions largest road infrasture projects (Mixing Bowl, Wilson Bridge, ICC, 14th and 11st bridge work, and RT 66 expansion inside and outside the beltway) you get a sum total cost of 6.3 billion. Combined, these roads/bridges carry 1.1 million vehicles a day.

This is just a bogus comparison, since you're just adding up a bunch of simple numbers from projects spread out over many years, vs looking at actual inflation-adjusted costs of those projects. Then you compare the total number of trips carried on those projects to a projected increase (not total) for the rail project. The total ridership for the Silver Line is much higher than 50K.

@goldfish
If the silver line was NOT built, the development that would have moved to northern Virginia would occur elsewhere, increasing the property values in other neighborhoods in the metropolitan DC area. So by spending NOTHING, the property values EVERYWHERE increase -- question is, by the same proportion?

Building improvements in one place does locally displace some growth but it also generates growth in addition to what would have have happened otherwise. So no, the property values would not increase by the same proportion. That is the added benefit.

In any case if the silver line is not built, the RIO = infinity, because the investment was zero. Nice.

Well if you only consider your investment to be $0 and the benefits to be increased property values, and you don't include any negative disbenefits of doing nothing, like increased time spent in traffic, increased commute lengths, increased pollution from more car trips, extra road maintenance/building we have to do because of increased traffic, traffic deaths, etc.

@Nickyp
Aren't roads paid for by various taxes and fees (state gasoline tax, federal gasoline tax, income tax collected by the state and federal governments, etc). So technically, you are paying, even if indirectly. And any of these fictional roads we're talking about could set up tolls, so then you would be paying directly.

The perception to the user is that they are low cost/free because you do not directly pay while you are using it. You pay for gas but that is only a portion of the total cost of operating your car, and the taxes on gas pay for less than 50% of road costs.

@everyone
The problem with many of these comparisons is that the costs of transit are easily quantified (capital, operations & maintenance), while the costs for roads, especially the ongoing maintenance costs, are harder to quantify. Thus, it is easy to argue that roads are "cheaper," especially when you ignore external benefits/disbenefits, which are clearly tilted in transit's favor.

And I'm not sure what to say if you think that providing alternatives to 100% car-oriented living is a bad thing, especially considering that gas prices will continue to go up in the future. Also looking at prices in transit-oriented areas, it seems clear that there is unmet demand for that kind of living.

by MLD on Sep 5, 2012 8:51 am • linkreport

@MLD: Well if you only consider your investment to be $0 and the benefits to be increased property values, and you don't include any negative disbenefits of doing nothing, like increased time spent in traffic, increased commute lengths, increased pollution from more car trips, extra road maintenance/building we have to do because of increased traffic, traffic deaths, etc.

Hmm, do you believe in induced demand or not? Because according to that principle, if we do nothing, traffic will decrease!

by goldfish on Sep 5, 2012 8:55 am • linkreport

MLD,

You claim the ridership for the Silverline will be much higher. I got that number right out of the Silverlines EIS.

What is the supposed real number and where are you getting it?

All of those projects above were initiated and or completed in the past decade. There will be some inflationary difference, but it is on the margins.

Comparing the gross number of vehicles per day traveling these projects to the trips per day of the Silverline is a valid comparison, especially considering we've ignored the hundreds of thousands of those road vehicles carrying multiple people (buses, vans, hov etc).

And the costs for roads are just as easily quantifiable, as are the funds taken specifically collected by these roads and spend on other transit projects such as the 3 billion in road tolls used to fund half this boondoggle.

by induced demand on Sep 5, 2012 9:00 am • linkreport

@goldfish
Hmm, do you believe in induced demand or not? Because according to that principle, if we do nothing, traffic will decrease!

Not sure where you got that idea. Honestly, you're arguing as if the last comment you read on this website is the only one you've ever read. We've covered this topic 1000 times before.

by MLD on Sep 5, 2012 9:01 am • linkreport

@MLD: if something is proportional, the proportion also works if the input is negative, as in "negative induced demand.", which is also cited here.

You can't have it both ways, claiming that we should not build things because doing so will eventually increase traffic, and then claim that NOT doing so will also increase traffic.

by goldfish on Sep 5, 2012 9:07 am • linkreport

This is a great conversation, but can we please tone down the "you said" ... "where'd you get the idea" ... etc. Let's talk about issues instead of sniping directly at the other person and their statements.

by David Alpert on Sep 5, 2012 9:10 am • linkreport

Using this analogy as a way to move people’s opinion is a bit flawed.

“Induced Demand" always occurs whenever the government provides subsidies for a scarce good. Whether it is hamburgers, bicycles, cars, SUV’s, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Roads, Trains, etc., it doesn’t matter. If someone is supplying a good below marginal cost (i.e. subsidizing) you’ll move your demand curve (i.e. inducing demand).

Since Induced Demand happens whenever the government gets involved in the market for anything, the whole argument is based upon pre-formed notions of what is “good” or “bad” induced demand. See MLD above “which means more negative impacts of cars. .” Now I’m not debating the merits of cars v. car free, but if you want to make that argument, make the argument. Make the health effects argument, make the convenience argument (possibly the best one), make the sustainability argument. However, realize that if you do not come into the debate with an a priori notion that “cars are bad” inducing demand doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.

by Econ101 on Sep 5, 2012 9:55 am • linkreport

We have 80 years of experience building highways. Induced demand is pretty well proven by the evidence. In the short run, if one doubles the capacity of a road, it will cause a 10-70 percent increase in traffic. In the long run, new roadways attract new development, so that a road with doubled capacity ends up with a 50-100 percent increase in traffic. That's the basis for the saying, "We can't build our way out of congestion."

Roadway planners usually justify the cost of roadway expansions by the congestion reduction they provide. Induced demand says that roadway expansions are a lot less cost effective than simple models say they are. Newer planning models are starting to incorporate induced demand into the forecasts and cost-benefit calculations.

The simple fact is that no city in the world can afford to build all of the road capacity that is needed to guarantee free-flowing traffic during rush hours. So cities have to budget their transportation dollars wisely. Induced demand means that more roadway proposals fail the cost-benefit test, when compared to the simple assumption that more road space = less congestion.

by Laurence Aurbach on Sep 5, 2012 10:27 am • linkreport

@David Alpert, I mentioned this in a past post, but especially when a comment is made to be a focal point of a post, it is harder to have a discussion without directly addressing people.

by selxic on Sep 5, 2012 10:31 am • linkreport

Tysons has been forcasting an additional 100K residents and 200K jobs since the mid nineties, 7 years prior to the draft EIS for the silverline even being complete so giving it credit for a Tysons transformation is pretty disingenuous

Actually, those forecasts, and many more before and since, were taking into account transit build-out for the region. In fact, those forecasts assumed that the rail project would be completed by 2005. There were no models that had predicted this level of growth from road projects alone.

http://www.dullesmetro.com/about/timeline.cfm

http://www.dullesmetro.com/pdfs/FEIS_/FTA_FEIS_Chapter_1.pdf

http://www.dullesmetro.com/pdfs/FEIS_III/App%20%20J%20Chapter%203.pdf

by Scoot on Sep 5, 2012 10:36 am • linkreport

This short article made the case against single-payer healthcare.

by Ironchef on Sep 5, 2012 12:19 pm • linkreport

That's the basis for the saying, "We can't build our way out of congestion."

...which leads directly to "so don't bother trying". Induced demand is the ready-made reasoning behind every activists' argument to kill a road project, regardless of merit.

by goldfish on Sep 5, 2012 1:47 pm • linkreport

@goldfish

Induced demand: - We mustn't build any roads because people might actually have the audacity to want to them.

And the "you can't build your way out of congestion" argument reminds me of the following scenario:

Doctor: I have some news.

Patient: What's up?

Dr: You are very seriously ill. You could possibly die if something isn't done

Pt: What can you do?

Dr: There is surgery.

Pt: If I have the surgery will I live forever?

Dr: Of course not.

Pt: Then don't bother.

by ceefer on Sep 5, 2012 6:10 pm • linkreport

Pt: What if I make some life style changes?

Dr: Then you might not need the surgery.

Pt: Will I live forever then?

Dr: How old are you?

by Thayer-D on Sep 5, 2012 8:33 pm • linkreport

You want to talk about "Lifestyle changes?"

China is going from bikes to cars. And they also happen to be the world's largest holder of US currency.

Meanwhile, we're moving towards 19th century technology and calling anyone who doesn't like it "stuck in a 1950's way of thinking".

Hmmmm...

by ceefer66 on Sep 6, 2012 12:33 am • linkreport

"Induced demand is the ready-made reasoning behind every activists' argument to kill a road project, regardless of merit."

Induced demand is just one of many reasons activists oppose roadway projects. Other reasons may include ecological damage; pollution, noise, and visual blight; places that are more unpleasant and dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists; and fewer travel choices.

The surgery analogy is particularly gruesome, because wider, faster arterials and collector streets increase the risk of serious injuries and fatalities from crashes.

Ultimately, the deciding factor may not be any arguments by activists, but basic economics. Low-density sprawl does not pay for itself. It doesn't generate enough tax revenue to pay for maintenance of its extensive roadway system. As others have observed, low density sprawl is a ticking time bomb of unfunded liabilities. More and more cities are realizing they can't afford to continue a policy of unlimited roadway expansion.

by Laurence Aurbach on Sep 6, 2012 9:50 am • linkreport

Mr Aurbach: Low-density sprawl does not pay for itself. It doesn't generate enough tax revenue to pay for maintenance of its extensive roadway system...

It depends on where the development occurs. Putting up a sprawly shopping mall in New York City is unlikely to be cost effective. OTOH, building this sort of thing in a small town in (say) Iowa will indeed provide enough revenue to "pay for the maintenance of its extensive roadway system." In fact, most such places would welcome a new mall and the tax revenue it provides.

Most of the US is very, very low density, and it is unreasonable to deny this area everything but high density development.

by goldfish on Sep 6, 2012 10:05 am • linkreport

"China is going from bikes to cars. And they also happen to be the world's largest holder of US currency."

actually Hangzhou has started the worlds largest bike share system. China is going from an economy based on subsistence agriculture, with most people making few trips and cities relying on cheap one speed bikes, to a modern economy with cars, highways, modern bike tech, and modern mass transit, including high speed rail.

We are already an advanced economy - so the question for us is what to do at the margins.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 6, 2012 10:14 am • linkreport

"And the "you can't build your way out of congestion" argument reminds me of the following scenario:"

It MAY well make sense to expand highway capacity for a short to medium term relief of congestion. Thats fine, as long as we recognize the impact of induced demand, and that some other strategies may have a longer term impact.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 6, 2012 10:16 am • linkreport

@goldfish: Agreed, it does depend on location, but it also depends on the form & pattern of the development. I'll quote Chuck Marohn's article directly — it really does have important insights:
Over a life cycle, a city frequently receives just a dime or two of revenue for each dollar of liability. The engineering profession will argue, as ASCE does, that we're simply not making the investments necessary to maintain this infrastructure. This is nonsense. We've simply built in a way that is not financially productive.

We've done this because, as with any Ponzi scheme, new growth provides the illusion of prosperity. In the near term, revenue grows, while the corresponding maintenance obligations — which are not counted on the public balance sheet — are a generation away.

Bacon's Rebellion had a post yesterday that shows how this is playing out in Northern Virginia.

by Laurence Aurbach on Sep 6, 2012 10:28 am • linkreport

I think China is also starting to realize that the car is going to be disastrous for them. It is just such an inefficient way to do anything when there are 1.4 billion people to deal with.

Some interesting facts on driving in China:
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=409&catid=13&subcatid=86

by NikolasM on Sep 6, 2012 10:29 am • linkreport

@NikolasM: which "China" are you referring to? The people that need to get to work every morning, or its totalitarian leadership?

by goldfish on Sep 6, 2012 10:34 am • linkreport

China is going from bikes to cars. And they also happen to be the world's largest holder of US currency.

A lot of this is being fueled by China's industrial revolution and the fact that cars are seen as status symbols in developing countries like China (as well as India and others). You can thank America for both those things.

by Scoot on Sep 6, 2012 1:15 pm • linkreport

If you read those facts you'd see that the vast majority of Chinese do not rely on cars to get to work...

by NikolasM on Sep 7, 2012 1:27 pm • linkreport

China is going from bikes to cars, but it is also building large amounts of transit, because only a small % actually own cars.

Some may be driving because the pollution in many of China's cities is now so bad that the air routinely exceeds what would be considered a workplace hazard. How many Americans would want to live like that?

I don't know why anyone is holding up China as a model for urban planning. You may not want to make USA like Europe, but if faced with the choice I'm sure 95% would prefer Germany over China.

by SJE on Sep 8, 2012 2:46 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Elabora un relato que usando el simil de la comida rapida, desbarata la argumentacion usada como justificacion para aumentar carriles a una calle o construir una nueva, para disminuir el congestionamiento. El problema verdadero esta en la gratuidad en el uso de las calles. Ningun satisfactor que se entregue gratuitamente podra satisfacer la demanda que genera (por ser gratuito, no por representar un bien publico)