More Infrastructure Failures Likely
Today, as we learn more about the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota, we should understand this may well be a continued occurance throughout America. In March of this year a portion of a concrete railing of a minor St. Louis road collapsed onto interstate I-55 just blocks from my house (see post).  Had the massive piece of concrete landed on top of a car no doubt that someone would have been killed.
In the last 50+ years prior generations went on a road building spree. Land was plentiful, gasoline was cheap and pollution from car exhausts wasn’t a concern. Roads and bridges sprang up everywhere to feed the rush into the corn fields and forests around established cities.
The proper maintenance of that older infrastructure, combined with the costs for our current expansion projects to handle ever more SUVs, will send the richest country to the poor house.
Yesterday’s bridge collapse will likely reinforce the advocates seeking billions of dollars to replace or build new bridges, ramps, roads and such. These groups, backed by those who seek to gain work from the projects, will push for more bridge replacements. Clearly, the bridge that collapsed was in need of help.  Reports indicate it was known that three structural members were carrying more load than others, why weren’t these beefed up so as to prevent a collapse and the deaths of those trusting the safety of the bridge?
Reports vary but it seems like the Minnesota officials were not planning to replace the bridge for another 10 years or so. To a degree, they were likely trying to figure out what to do with all the traffic during the construction.
Our society has become so dependent upon the car and the old infrastructure we’ve built that we don’t seem to know how to reverse the trend. Each passing year we just pile on more new infrastructure and make our way down a list of items to be repaired or replaced. The WPA never really stopped, we just renamed the job creation program the Department of Transportation.
The freedom of mobility is often cited as the benefit the car and our system of roads and bridges has afforded us in our society. The irony, of course, is the increased mobility for those driving came at the expense of those who once relied on the rights of way for walking or bicycling. Increased mobility for some had lead us to decreased mobility for others. For example, far fewer kids walk to school than just 30 years ago. Why? That “freedom” of mobility has become mandatory.
I liken this to the unhealthy behavior that keeps a battered woman in an abusive relationship.  Our auto-dependent culture is not really good for us but we just can’t bring ourselves to leave it. The number of victims of this freedom will continue to rise.
In 2005, an engineering society reported that 35% of the bridges in Missouri were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
IN 2002, the voters turned down a tax increase for highways. In 2004, voters approved Amendment 3 diverting money from other needs to pay for road improvements, around $200 million a year. Then bonds were let for a lot of safety improvements. And in 2010, Missouri has to start paying off those bonds and this short term fix has to be paid for.
In addition, the federal highway dollars are falling far short.
Yet Missouri continues to want to expand the system, talking about more lanes to I-70, as many as 8, with a new sales tax.
Time to realize we can’t keep up with the costs of maintaining what we have now and seriously invest in transit and ways to slow down sprawl. The costs of sprawl and auto dependency are far higher than our leaders in the past 50 years ever imagined.
It seems fairly unlikely that people will see this as an aspect of a highway
system that is too expansive and too difficult to maintain…. although I
agree that it should be seen that way. Clearly, this was a necessary
bridge, but have you ever thought about all the totally unneccesary
portions of elevated highway that exist? How about the massive
interchange system on the east side of the river, with numerous multiple
decks and crossovers? I have to believe that these elevated portions of
road are far more expensive to maintain / and more dangerous to navigate
/ than surface roads or highways. And now we are building more of them
around the new 170 / 40 interchange…
Lets hope we are at the historical end to this drive faster / crash more
spectacularly period. Because we obviously cant afford to keep it up.
Drive around St. Louis and you’ll see a surprising number of bridges with
broken concrete and exposed rebar skeletons… that can’t be that safe.
The Husband made the exact same point when he called me this morning. Most of the major highway projects were completed 30+ years ago–yes, we continue to expand, but the old infrastructure provides the basis, and it simply hasn’t been maintained. He blames it on the military industrial complex, but I found myself thinking about always awarding to the lowest bidder. I thought about the political benefits of maintenance: as you’ve pointed out before, there aren’t any. There is no ribbon-cutting for painting a school, even though a simple coat of paint every few years will help to prevent the necessity of building a new one. There is no ground-breaking ceremonies for maintaining a bridge, but golden shovels will be handed out for the beginning of construction of a new one.
Moving to transit won’t solve the problem: that infrastructure has to be maintained too. This issue is already raising its ugly head with our almost 15-year-old first light rail line. Most of us ignore the need for maintenance in our personal lives, buying homes with low maintenance materials and new cars that don’t need inconvenient trips to the shop. We’ve ignored it in our public lives, constantly demanding lower taxes. Sooner or later, we Americans will have to face up to the fact that if we want services–highways, buses, schools, medical care–we have to pay what it actually costs.
I am just happy that we have a new Stadium in St Louis. The old one was about 40 years old and we all know the peril that the old concrete structure posed to Redbird fans. Bridges ? We will plan for those after the completion of Ball Park Village.
About 50,000 people die each year in automobile related accidents. How many with transit?
MarkR,
Funny that you bring specifically bridges up about the old Busch. The bridge over 7th/8th st. is the same design as a bridge that collapsed at a race track several years ago killing people. Ironically, that is the only part of the stadium still standing.
America currently spends billions of dollars on crumbling infrastructure…oh wait that’s in Iraq.
At this point, identifying a cause for yesterday’s collapse is pure speculation. The poke at “the costs for our current expansion projects to handle ever more SUVs” is misdirected, as well – “single-occupant vehicles” is a much better description of the problem – it doesn’t matter if Joe or Jane Commuter is driving an SUV, mini-van, pickup, smart4two or a motor scooter, they’re still demanding a place on the highway. By adopting an autocentric lifestyle, we reduce density and force nearly everyone to drive more miles. In urban areas, we’re trading maintenance for a never-ending quest for increased capacity. And while the I-64 project will add capacity only between 170 & 270 (none between 170 & Kingshighway), it will replace multiple decaying bridges, so maintenance does occur on occasion. And, unfotunately, “investing in transit” without parallel changes in zoning and land use patterns will NOT solve our challnges with sprawl. The reality is that transit needs density to be successful, either through high-density “downtowns” (both old and new urbanist solutions) and/or by creating virtual density by creating functional park-and-ride stations in the suburbs – most people (who have a choice) will only use transit if it offers them something better than a solitary commute – convenience, frequent service, comfort, lower prices, safety, speed – that providing a bus stop on a suburban corner simply can’t offer. Yes, maintenance is very real problem. But until we get past all wanting to own our own little piece of suburban (or even urban) dirt, we’re going to have to deal with the impacts of sprawl. With the population going to increase by a third over the next thirty – forty years, the ONLY two choices we have are to grow up or to grow out, with transportation needs growing exponentially if sprawl is the choice we (will likely) make as a society . . .
Many infrastructure issues are being ignored by leadership at all levels of government. Some like highways, bridges and roads are easy to see and understand. From a financial viewpoint, most of these problems (particularly public pension and health care costs) have been well hidden. Elected leaders find it much easier to let the next guy be the bearer of bad news. This type of elected official typically waits for a catastrophe to display leadership.
Our agencies such as MoDOT are spending as fast as possible to create infrastructure that guarantees life-long jobs for current employees instead of concentrating on properly maintaining what is already in place. The design-build approach for the New 64 along with the agency’s failures to incorporate auto alternatives will further exacerbate the past mistakes.
Local attitudes and behaviors, particularly the autocentrism, supports these inferior decisions. The auto addiction is creating an unsustainable, expensive and deadly combination of unforseen/unaddressed issues. As a parent with school-aged sons, I watch daily as other parents drive their children to school, some are as close as two blocks! Their excuse? “It’s too dangerous to walk or bike here!”
The next collapse, especially financially, is likely to be much worse than this story as terrible as it is. The future financial burdens on the public may create the same catrastrophe as experienced on 35W, but on a much larger scale.
John
You mentioned the “next Collapse” which triggered me to think about the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. This book reviews the common themes in societies and cultures that actually have collapsed or disappeared for reasons not always known. To read this in context to what is now occuring globally but especially in the US by turning our crops and food chians over to fuel sources to supply our continual demands to motor/jet about, foul the air, and possibly, by default, change the climate. One gets the impression that there is an end to it but it is not one we want for the grandchildren.
China will ad millions of cars and drivers in the next 10 years, what ever is going on as a result of combustion engines will only continue at an increasingly rapid pace.
Mark R
I would add to your comment about China adding millions of cars and drivers in the next 10 years that while that’s true, China is also set to do huge mass transit projects concurrently. 12 million transit cards have been issued in Beijing alone for use on subways, buses, and taxis. Also,I thinkBeijing has something like 14 new transit lines scheduled to be built.
daniel, you took the words right out of my response.
I have a friend who is an engineer for St. louis city, and one day a few years ago he came home and gave his wife a list of the bridges she was no longer allowed to drive on. Those bridges are all still open, except for the chouteau viaduct system. One on the list was the Grand viaduct…
TRANSPORTATION REPORT FROM THE EAST:
I live on Staten Island, the most suburban, least populous (though fastest growing), least well served by public transit and thus most car dependent of New York City’s five boroughs–a place where ‘high rise’ and ‘density’ are dirty words.
Though people here will justify driving and multiple-car-per-family ownership as necessities, when pressed they will defend car ownership and private transport as rights–in terms that sound a lot like the NRA defending what they tell me is my right to own a gun.
Local political and business-community support for mass transit has been, to put it kindly, abstract–sort of like their support for concepts like Brotherhood and Freedom.
So you can imagine my surprise when, two days ago, as he arrived at a scene of automotive chaos at rush hour near the Verrazano Narrows Bridge tolls, our borough president–normally the motorist’s best friend–threw up his hands and declared, “Staten Island needs mass transit!” This from a man who was outraged that, following 9/11, cars would no longer be allowed on the Staten Island Ferry.
Just as surprising is the reaction of local politicos to Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal, part of a much larger PlaNYC, designed to prepare for 1 million additional citizens who will arrive in the next decade along with an accelerating need to conserve resources. Happily, the majority of our reps at the city and state levels are interested if not gung-ho–provided Staten Island benefits with upgraded rail, ferry and bus services.
What’s surprising is not simply that changes are happening here; it’s the pace at which they’re happening. Less than a year ago, Congestion Pricing and similar proposals were considered Dead on Arrival; today they’re the subject of citywide (and upstate legislative) debate. Increasingly, the proposal’s implementation–or something quite similar–is seen as close to inevitable.
Next on my transportation reform wish-list: Discourage driving even further by charging tolls on all bridges and by eliminating all free parking in the central business district. When you charge what parking’s really worth you free up spaces, reducing the number of exhaust-spewing cars circling the block endlessly looking for a spot.
All this is predicated on significant upgrades and additions to existing public transit services–part of the congestion pricing plan–without which implementation wouldn’t be practical or politically do-able.
Something’s changing, and the change appears to be big and global. It may not have reached my second-favorite city yet, but as more cities and regions worldwide bite the bullet and phase out dependence on private cars, what may have seemed impossible suddenly starts looking possible, maybe even likely.
And yesterday was to be the grand groundbreaking ceremony of the new twins stadium which is going to use 100’s of millions of tax dollars to build
hmmmm
Amen! You stated it very well!
Keep Cycling!
This is a product of a failed political system that does not have the courage to make decisions other than for the benefit of insiders and the status quo. As an example, there is no meaningful change in the energy bill working its way through Congress now, just more incremental modifications. It should be an opportunity to rethink American transportation.
A radical reversal of policy is needed. As Steve points out it is an auto dependent society without any real balance in priorities. There is more concern about funding stadiums and Ballpark Villages than creating a livable society.
It is a dead end in evolutionary terms, yet it is clear, with the lack of national and local leadership, there will be more solutions that have been the hallmark of the status quo for so many years. (So much for capitalism being inventive)
While I agree with Lisa that mass transit, like everything else needs maintenance, transit would help create a desperately needed balance. There are thousands of miles of roads and thousands of bridges born of sprawl.
The lack of resiliency will create crisis after crisis, as Chip War points out in his article “Diesel Driven Bee Slums and Impotent Turkeys”.
The post by Dan Icolari at least gives a glimmer of hope. Although it is unfortunate that it is probably going to take a massive crisis to spur needed change in the political system.
I think there are some valid point raised by Lisa, Jim, and Mark. For Lisa’s comments I would say one of the main reasons (besides lack of funds) preventative maint is not done is because what is the result? traffic tie ups, frustration, and yes, no votes for those currently in office. The only way to get some of these votes is jobs through massive new construction projects. Don’t mess with my highway is a sad mantra.
As for Jim, I agree, it isn’t the SUV’s per se, (with exception to those massive hummers and esconldas or whatevers) but single occupancy vehicles. With the pathetic regulatory gas mileage, most vehicles get between 15 and 25 mpg when they could be getting more (oh wait, our great auto makers who are years behind in design keep pushing ads that influnence waste so that they don’t have to change – ever here them say that America wants SUVs? it’s because everyone is convinced its the ‘in thing’). Add to this the fact that for most couples, both work and time is valuable. It is a viscious circle.
As for Marks’ comments about China. Can we really compare a country of over a BILLION people to ours? Yes in some ways we can, but taking the example of 14 new subways…sounds like a lot ….heaven for us. But in a city of over 3, 4 or 5 million, that is probably adding an extra bus route or two. It really needs to be put in context. But I do agree, we need more mass transit, and more of it at a hell of a lot less than 600+ million for just a few miles.
I wasn’t entirey sure how frequently it occurs, but the Poplar street bridge has been rammed by bardges more than once. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about the likely/possible consequences of that.
“drive faster/crash more” Well put. I’m always confused why more noise isn’t made over auto deaths a year. From what I see everyday, I’m surprised it isn’t a higher number. Horay for seatbelts.
Off subject but I guess related. War in Iraq, Universal Healthcare, Infrastructure overhaul… can’t have’m all. How about last month’s manhatten steam pipe episode?
Highways for cars-trucks are “mobility providers” in rural areas but not in urban environments. Our local highways have become like the Berlin Wall, decreasing personal mobility and destroying neighborhoods. I’m starting to agree with you Steve that highways should be eliminated entirely in cities. Ideally they should be torn out and made to be Complete Streets (http://www.completestreets.org/howtogetto.html)
Many of our public assets are creating unfunded liabilities which are not recognized by our current public accounting systems. Not only are our bridges being poorly maintained but also other infrastructure issues like sewers. The StL area has been built with sewage system that serve waste water and storm water in the same pipes and the EPA will enact regulations that will require this obvious problem to be remedied in the near future. Just imagine the costs of rebuilding this infrastructure!
MSNBC is reporting that the society of engineers have claimed that the USA needs to spend $1.6 trillon over the next five years to repair our bridges and tunnels. Other countries are turning to public-private partnerships to solve these problems. However in our supposedly free market economy, this strategy is quickly dismissed as “unfair to the public”.
With private ownership, those who may be harmed by negligence has the court system to balance the scales of injustice. Under our current system, it is nearly impossible to sue governmental agencies for neglect. However, our current system supports the power of our elected leaders and their appointed officials. The status quo is unsupportable but how expensive will it be with further delays?
Three or four years ago I downloaded a report put out by MoDOT directly admitting that they do not have the resources (financial & man power) to maintain the highway and road system as it stood at the time. Yet they were committed to building more capacity. The breakdown of the money was as follows (I forget which year this was):
$1 billion for new road construction, $200 million for maintenance and $12 (or was it 14) million for public transit (this was mainly for Amtrak, the mules that run from St Louis and Kansas city, the state does not contribute to the transit systems in the major cites, ie St Louis & Kansas City)
Occasionally I would get into a conversation with various people and quote these numbers or the fact that MoDOT admitted that they cannont maintain the system, but few would grasp the implications.
If you are going to keep building new roads or add capacity to roads, eventually you will have to maintain all of these new roads. If you admit that you cannot maintain what you already have and yet keep spending hundreds of millions on more then only one conclusion remains.
Missouri ranks 6th in the nation for amount of roads and of bridges. http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_transportation_statistics_2006/
Missouri ranks 17th in poplulation and 21st in size. It is no wonder they can’t maintain everything.
It is time to pull back on new projects.
Public-private partnerships are problematic for me. Much like bonding, they solve an immediate or short-term problem by borrowing against future revenues. The only difference is that a private entity is borrowing the money instead of a public one. It’s sleight of hand and makes the current budget (look) “balanced”. Our fundamental “problem” is that current revenues (taxes) are not sufficient to meet current “needs”. There are only two viable solutions, either raise taxes or reduce services (or some combination of the two). Fix what you got before you build something else that will require additional future maintenance. “Bite the bullet”, offend the voters, and make some hard choices. Borrowing ever-increasing amounts for longer periods simply delays the reality that public services and amenities need to be/are paid for out of public revenues (see funding for public pensions)! Whether it’s highways, transit or sewers, any government “service”, by definition, is both subsidized and represents a redistribution of wealth. The ONLY way to provide increasing levels of service without raising taxes on “your” voters is to figure out how to tax those who can’t vote yet need or choose to be taxed within your jurisdiction (primarily through sales and income taxes). Bottom line, maintaining infrastructure ain’t glamorous, and “You can pay me now or pay me later”, but you’re still gonna pay, and later’s gonna cost you more!
Amen to everything you said. Mindless expansion without a thought for why (is it necessary) or the how (can we keep it in good shape?) has put us in this situation, and it’s hard to see what will get us out of it, except for long-range planning, something that has never been our society’s forte.
There’s an excellent film on sprawl and its negative side effects called “The Unforseen” that’s been playing in some film festivals. Well worth checking out if you can get to it.
http://streams.twobirdsfilm.com/
The State has known about these problems for years and years. It is time to stop building anew and update and repair what we have. On a side-note, I tried to get to the other side of the new on-ramp by the 9th or 10th Street & I-64/40 approach (on the side of the new ballpark) and have found it is virtually impossible. They destroyed the sidewalks and cut them off; you have to walk 5 blocks around the pathetic new wall-like on-ramp structure to get to the other side and not in the best of areas to walk at 11pm after a game!
No doubt public-private partnerships are problematic but leaving the responsibility of maintainance to public officials is a recipe for more disasters. It is not simply a matter of “pay me now or pay me later”…it is an issue of making the users pay for the benefits received instead of making EVERYONE pay!
That is why the trend is towards a more balanced approach which means tolls, congestion pricing, and complete streets. Eliminating free parking on commercial-shopping lots (via appraisals and tax policies) and public right-of-ways is needed in StL asap. Until we have a more fair and balanced strategy, it will be impossible to change self-destructive tendencies which are being subsidized by governmental policies.
John – You’re getting into a different area when you start to advocate for tolls and congestion pricing. While government is, by definition, all about redistributing wealth to provide services, the bottom line is that services need to be paid for – there is no free money out there. Nobody likes paying taxes, but most people like and use at least some of the services that taxes provide, and rarely are they paying the full cost of what they do use. And, what one person views as a valid civic purpose is viewed by another as wasteful spending. I drive but I don’t have any kids in school – should funding be eliminated for the public school system just because I don’t use it? Community College system? public transit? The cost of maintaining rural roads, on a per capita basis, is much greater than maintaining urban roads – money flows out of St. Louis to rural parts of the state, and has for years – is this “right” or “fair”? I rarely need the fire department – should I be able to just pay ($10,000? $20,000, $30,000?) for their services only when I “need” them? And the reality is, yes, I/we all pay for our “free” parking when we spend money in those stores (part of the price we pay at the register goes to pay the rent) – on-street parking and public transit are no more “free” than a parking lot at the mall. Sure, you can vote with your feet and not patronize stores that provide “free” parking, but I think you’ll find yourself in a small minority of shoppers.
The dirty secret behind tolling anything is a need to keep parallel roads congested, to force more people to use the toll roads – in the end, no one wins – congestion remains the same or gets worse, only now we just to get to pay for something that was previously “free”. I also don’t get the logic in “eliminating free parking on commercial-shopping lots” – unless its done on a statewide basis, much like a smoking ban, it just drives business away from those jurisdictions who implement such a ban (see Union Station as an example where paying to park is killing the retail). The whole issue about deferred maintenance is bigger than simply blaming public officials – 99% of the time, it IS a non-issue simply because the officials DO listen to their constituents and taxes are not raised and money continues to get borrowed and services continue to gradually expanded and “new and improved” is where our tax money gets spent.
The whole reason public pension funds are woefully underfunded is a combination of increasing benefits beyond those in the private sector and not putting enough money in every year. How many candidates have you heard say “I want to get elected so I can put more money in the police pension fund.” or “I want to get elected so I can replace every bridge in the city over the next twenty years, but by the way, I’m going to have to close all our libraries and recreation centers.” Yes, it is about accountability. Unfortunately, with the concept of soverign immunity, there seem to be few consequences in government, either at the elected level or at the staff level, when something goes wrong. Who was fired because the Delor Street bridge’s sidewalk fell off? Who lost an election because of the problems on the Cross-County extension? Why are we (through the $250 million Congress signed off on yesterday) already helping to pay for the bridge that collapsed?! The odds of anyone frrom Missouri driving on it is pretty slim, plus we already helped to pay for it once 30 years ago. The cost of maintenance would’ve been a fraction of the replacement cost. Why not just tell the folks in Minnesota that MinnDOT screwed up and here’s a couple of million to close of both ends to help remove the debris? And if you want a new bridge, figure out how to pay for it out of state and/or local funds?!
Yes, we need an educated, motivated, and responsible group of politicians to provide leadership at all levels. We, as voters, need to hold them accountable. But, it seems like we only get the best candidates money can buy, packaged into sound bites and TV ads and insulated by (and beholden to) the party machinery. Voter apathy is well documented. Too much “government” is done in reaction to the problem-du-jour, not in response to any extensive pro-active efforts. Yes, it does get back to money – there never, ever is “enough” (and it’s easier to threaten closing libraries or schools and end up deferring maintenance), but ultimately, it gets back to us, the voters. Bridge maintenance is a priority this weekend, but how big a priority will it be next January and February when the state budget is being developed? Unfortunately, the reality is either much higher taxes (including, potentially adding tolls) or fewer services (which can be translated to include increased congestion).
The design, layout and funding of our transportation systems is one of the most important variables in determining our surroundings. Many would posit that it is the central issue in urban design. Steve’s main point (50+ year spending spree, designed to create personal mobility, has created an unsustainable and self-destructive infrastructure) that one group’s strategy (ie. automobile dependency) for personal mobility is rapidly becoming everyone’s’s burden IMO is true and valid. He even suggests that this unhealthy dependency has become psychosis-like which creates a whole new set of unhealthy dependencies and behaviors. How do we as a society correct these trends?
I would love to answer and addres all the issues you raised but this is Steve’s space and not mine. Hopefully we will have a chance to meet some day to debate these issues in a more efficient manner.
My suggestions of making those pay for the services they receive IMO is the first step in ending the subsidized dependency. Our road designs/policies are forcing others who don’t want to be car dependent to be exactly that. Libertarians know that government decision making is inferior as it muddles and obfuscates issues to make public debates more difficult.
We as a society already have numerous public-private arrangements… some working, some utter failures. Locally our elected officials have made public debates difficult and almost impossible here, especially on such complex issues as urban design. As citizens looking for more balanced and enlightened solutions, we have governing structure which appoints fellow citizens who have volunteered to serve as our advocates.
Steve asks why this imbalance has occured and continuing. Poor leadership is obvious. But what are our bike-pedestrian advocate organizations doing to rebalance the scales in order to have a healthier and more liveable environment? Do you know these organizations and their objectives-strategies? What are the personal opinions of the leaders and directors? What exactly are they accomplishing in order to provide more personal mobility for St. Louisans? Do they help hold MoDOT and MetroLink accountable and responsible for written policies which are designed to support cycling-pedestrian alternatives? Or do most of them drive their cars to meetings and thus have become part of the problem instead of the solution?
John I agree with much of what you said ^ – we are being held captive by what we’ve built to date, combined with the prevailing mindset that suburban sprawl is the best and/or only “alternative” to growth. The point I tried to make (and probably didn’t) is that tolling and congestion pricing don’t really fix the problem they just “rearrange the deck chairs”. Government funding is finite. Personal resources are finite. While the theory of “paying only for what you use” is the libertarian ideal, it negelects the reality that taxes rarely decline. If you make a freeway a tollroad, the taxes that were/would’ve been going to fund a “free” service simply get spent somewhere else, resulting in a “hidden” tax increase – a fee is essentially a tax. Government doesn’t get leaner, it just creates new forms of taxing entities. Until concepts like congestion pricing result in positive solutions to the “problem” they’re allegedly trying to “fix”, I can’t support them. You are right, however, that we do need to hold our leaders accountable, and the current “solutions” speak for themselves . . .
Congestion pricing and other methods to make the users pay do work, just look at London.
WSJ reports (7-20-07): London Mayor Ken Livingstone introduced the fee in 2003 to relieve the city’s traffic jams, and expanded the zone in February. Since its introduction, the congestion charge has reduced traffic, prompted people to use public transportation and cut pollution. In 2006, about 60% of Londoners said they support the congestion charge, up from 40% in 2002. London is already experiencing a cycle revolution with the number of cyclists soaring by 83 per cent since 2000, and the Mayor of London seeks to boost these numbers even more.
Less cars, less pollution, more cyclists, greater use of public transportation, etc. and you say this isn’t working? And yes it has raised government revenues dramatically which should be balanced with tax cuts elsewhere. Government taxes income and wealth creation and too often fails to adequately tax negative activities. We’ve learned to place heavy taxes on alcohol and tobacco addictions but not on auto-addictions. Congestion pricing, tolls, no free parking, etc. will change behavior and if dome correctly will make our communities more liveable and prosperous.
The difference in London, as I understand it, is that the congestion tax is going directly to pay for more and better transit. IF (a big IF) we could impose a $1 per transaction and/or per day fee on all parking downtown (including doubling parking meter rates) here AND all this money were added to the current transit funding streams, we would likely see three results – an increase in transit services, businesses voting with their feet and moving out of downtown, and yes, less “congestion”. Downtown St. Louis ain’t London or NYC. While there are many businesses who continue to choose to be downtown, it’s a fragile balance – a lot of these businesses don’t NEED to be downtown to serve their clients. They choose to be here for a variety of reasons – the vibe, historic relationships, a central location, and yes, both transit AND available, relatively-affordable parking. Unlike, NYC or London, around here there are multiple attractive, convenient, affordable options to “escape” downtown, including Clayton, West Port, Progress Park and the I-64 corridor in St. Louis County, should push come to shove. Plus our downtown is NOT congested (grid locked) like NYC or London are! Sure, we have our rush hours and game days and special events and we get stuck in traffic on the freeways. Leave a half hour early or an hour later and it’s evaporated – it’s a non-issue, and certainly not one bad enough to justify the draconian response congestion pricing or tolling would impose.
John, I get it, you know best, we should reduce our driving and sell our SUV’s because it’s the RIGHT thing to do. Unfortunately, you’ll never convince anyone in power outside of downtown to consider the concept (yours would be a true minority voice) and only a fool would try to implement it in downtown if their goal is to keep the core area viable – see East St. Louis – while the cause of their decline was different, the results are very real. Perception is reality, and if businesses do not not feel welcome and safe, they WILL leave! Be careful what you ask for – less congestion is not necessarily a good thing, especially in a city like ours. And even doing the PC thing, when its done in a vacuum, is fraught with unintended consequences!