8 thoughts on “Roads Generate Traffic (Sometimes)”

  1. Living outside of Charlottesville, it makes absolutely no difference to me either way if the Meadowcreek Parkway gets built or not. That said, I really don’t think this article applies to Charlottesville’s issue. The article points to three major metropolitan areas. The smallest city cited, Portland, Oregon, has a population of over 500,000 (over 2 million in the metro area). Compare that to C’ville’s 45,000 (190,000 in the metro area) and it’s going to be tough to draw any real comparisons to what the article presents.

    Further, while I admit that I didn’t follow any of the links within the article, the article doesn’t give any specifics as how traffic actually changed. Everything reads as, “there used to be a major highway, but they took it away/changed it and added in more green space and all was good.” Okay, but how good was it, if it actually was? Given that there are statistics for EVERYTHING traffic related, particularly in major metro areas like the ones cited, it seems like a sizable omission that there are no before and after statistics listed in the article for something as simple as surrounding roads. And anecdotal evidence about people taking more public transportation sounds good, but is it true? There are stats for that as well.

    Lastly, as the article states, “All of the highway demolitions cited above are in densely packed urban areas where other highways and reliable and convenient public transportation options are available.” While the Meadowcreek Parkway money could be used to provide more reliable public transportation, I don’t think a traffic-light-choked US-29 can be considered a “reliable and convenient” alternative to the proposed parkway and it will take a lot of money to make it so.

  2. Considering these were major metro roads and the roads were designed long ago I don’t see that the cause and effect relationship is valid. If you would like to talk about removing a road to reduce traffic, OK. But none of these talk about the effect of ADDING a modern road. And as a parkway it’s has park design front and center. Adding usable green space is good- I think the Parkway does that. So I get more of a support for the Meadowcreek than Waldo does

  3. Although, I’d say it’s a battle already lost in terms of the Meadowcreek Paveway, I think Waldo’s assessment is pretty much acknowledged as fact.

    For that matter, just talk to local developers and they’ll tell you upfront how much they need this road for new development. One aspect that is skewed in terms of the MCP is that many of the developments anticipating the parkway already have been built (i.e. they’ve decided to just go ahead and cause the traffic now to put pressure on the city to do something about the problem they created). The principle is still true though, since if the MCP was never planned, then those developments would never have been built.

    Even so, building it now will still just enable that much more development being pushed further north up 29. If the City/County were smart, they’d ask for consessions from the developers in terms of design and redevelopment before they agree to finish it. Instead, its just a give-away.

  4. it is a sad joke that there are no public transportation initiatives associated with the MCP. Also, if we want less driving with equal/comparable quality of life we must have higher energy costs, either by requiring energy companies to be clean and pass the costs on, or tax the energy and use the taxes to clean up after them. Under Ike, we spent 95% of transportation funds on roads and less than 1% on public transport. the numbers do not get much better. we must acknowledge that we subsidized the car culture we have now and that we can effect an equally incredible transformation to a balanced and convenient system including public transport, especially in urban areas, if we decide to do so. while we go on name calling and essentially wanting to have our cake and eat it too, we are hurting our children and grandchildren due to our own greed, stupidity, and/or laziness.

  5. For the people who want public transportation and want to use it then you should be made to pay for it. Public transportation is one of the most subsidized government programs in existence. I have to pay my way as I go for the convenience and use of my automobile, purchase, insure, maintain, buy fuel, pay taxes on it, etc., etc. While you public transportation wackoos do none of these things. People who use public transportation should have to pay what it costs. Then you would see how long people praise to heaven the benefits of a public transportation system. Build the MCP and get on with it. And while you are at it stop trying to compare Charlottesville’s transportation situation to Portland, Oregon, or any similar place which is nothing like Charlottesville. We are unique unto ourselves.

  6. Public transportation is one of the most subsidized government programs in existence.

    That’s true. Especially roads for people to drive on. Those are crazy subsidized. How do you propose that we institute this toll to use any public road?

  7. Waldo I pay for the roads with my state and federal fuel taxes, as well as other taxes which go towards building roads. You probably do the same and probably more so than me since I do not drive that much anymore.
    If you want public transportation then charge the people that use it the full cost of operation. Fares would be out of sight and public transportation would be nothing more than a distant memory.
    Sorry, Waldo, I’m not a supporter of public transportation.

  8. Waldo I pay for the roads with my state and federal fuel taxes, as well as other taxes which go towards building roads.

    Jogger I pay for CTS with my state and federal taxes, as well as other taxes which go towards funding public transit.

Comments are closed.