When I was in Washington DC there was discussion of putting in pay-for commuter lanes in the same manner as HOV lanes. Naturally they got the moniker Lexus Lanes due to the impression that only the wealthy would pay for them.

Time lapse traffic from splorp's photostream

New Jersey originally had HOV lanes for high occupancy vehicles but in 1999 when I first started commuting down Rt.287 they removed them. It seems they caused more trouble than they were worth and it was simpler and easier to open up all the lanes to general commuter traffic. New Jersey did a pretty good job of keeping the traffic flowing.

California's Bay Area is thinking of introducing Lexus Lanes. It is a tough thing to bring as public roads are already payed for through a mix of county, state and federal taxes. They are a public asset that have already been payed for. So introducing a free market aspect to them, what is seen as a shared resource, is difficult to do. As always the money goes to something altruistic - like schools, paying for road maintenance (which is already financed through taxes), etc.

The other issue facing policy makers is that roads are very expensive and congestion is real. It will not get better and the car remains the most efficient means of transportation, and will continue to be so.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • adam . # . 1/1
    Cannot agree that the car is the most efficient form of transportation. It is only efficient under a certain regulatory environment which encourages sprawl and where city design lets cars choke out less armoured or more mass efficient options.
    Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
    • cam . # . 1/1
      Yeh but mass transport requires a mass of people going to one spot. Which is fine in a city, but not anywhere else and even then cities are spread out anyway.

      A car also gives people what they want, which is a form of privacy, the ability to go where you want when you want to and an element of personalisation. You dont get any of that with mass transit.
      'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
      • adam . # . 1/1
        Well, towns can be more city-like, or more village-like if you prefer, without needing the vast amounts of people in cities. Eg, they can be built around walkable centres rather than around car parks, the open sewers of 20th century transportation. As for your other points, they are all certainly reasons that people drive cars, but they don't have much to do with efficiency, which is the point I was taking issue with.
        Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
        • cam . # . 1/1
          I think it is more efficient. I dont have much time these days and I would have several hours less in a day if I used public transportation. A train always requires a connector, whether bus, etc and they have stops for each passenger. I used to dread catching the train from Central to the Hawkesbury during the day as you would get stuck on one that did every stop between Redfern and Blacktown - twenty something stops. Took forever. Was faster to drive.

          Unless life slows down cars offer people the most efficient form of transport in terms of time IMO.
          'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
          • adam . # . 1/1
            But look at the choices you made when you chose where to live, and when the city expanded out to the place where you live, and when the company you work for chose where to put it's office. If Phoenix is anything like Brisbane the assumptions were that the car was and always would be the best way to get anywhere. If you live in a public transport black hole of course driving is more efficient.

            It's not even true of Bris anymore depending on where you chose to live - if you choose to live near a train line and work in town it is cheaper and quicker not to drive and park. Or live in town itself for that matter and walk to work.

            Similarly when I chose my current flat I knew it had to be on a train line, with no changes, because I hate changes and I hate being stuck in traffic in a car or bus. It's 40 minutes door to desk because I chose to live a bit further out. This is easily quicker than driving through peak hour traffic and parking from this distance. I hate looking for parking, I would rather park five minutes away than spend five minutes looking for parking.

            It's not going to be true of everyone but when a network is in place, and you are near it, it is far quicker and cheaper than driving.

            Again though - and I guess after that spiel it is obvious I'm not the biggest car fan - none of this changes the legitimacy of your lifestyle choice to live in a particular location and choose the trade-offs associated with that.
            Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
            • cam . # .
              That is only true when public transportation is 'mass'. My example of the Richmond Rattlers in Sydney is a good example of how quickly it becomes inefficient for the user once it ceases to be mass transport.

              There are just too many people doing too many things for mass transit to be efficient all the time. Phoenix is a car city. There is bugger all mass transit here. A light rail has gone in between Tempe and downtown Phoenix but that is about all. I probably wouldnt use it unless it dumped me right by my office, and even then I probably wouldnt.

              The company I am with is moving near to the airport for production/shipping reasons away from the 101. So the transportation desires of its workers don't even rate.

              'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.