This is the next installment of our weekly Friday Reads post – listing some links and articles we’ve been reading at LR Towers.
Also check out our Industry News posts, updated every weekday, with the latest developments in technology, operations, frameworks, policy and best-practices.
If you’ve have something you feel we should read or include in a future list, don’t forget to email us at [email protected].
- Transit disaster evacuation science – CityLab
- Dear Mr Johnston – Eye Mag
- Mail Rail reopens, for people not mail, July 2017 – Postal Museum
- Airlander landing airbags added – The Engineer
- Seattle highway TBM breakthrough – Wired
- Atlanta’s failed Carmageddon – CityLab
- What drove the driving downturn? – CityLab
- Pay commuters not to drive? – LA Times
It’s quite fascination to see another article from a US city which puts immense subsidies into driving and car trip now considering or being urged to put more subsidies into public transport trips. It will, at least, start to even the scales a little, bit, even though it may be difficult politically, is nobody even talking about making drivers pay the full cost of their journeys (or even reduce those subsidies a bit)?
Quinlet: the article http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01944363.2016.1249508 (worth a read) from the penultimate item has a very succinct summary of how the problem has arisen:
Governments give drivers free land; people as a result drive more than they otherwise would.
Simple, eh?
@Mike
An interesting example of the “Tragedy of the Commons”.
The US examples cited are not entirely on all fours with the UK, where paying for on street parking, through resident’s parking permits, parking meters, etc, is the norm.
timbeau: All parking being paid is not quite the UK norm yet. It is the greater London norm, and other very big conurbations perhaps. Elsewhere paid parking is mostly a town-centre-only feature, though gradually creeping outwards.
We have tried hard in the UK to get at least market rates set for parking. The general aim is to set a rate which ensures about 85% occupancy. This does, of course, have absolutely nothing to do with the costs of providing the parking (with or without land or opportunity costs) but at least ensures some sort of service to drivers – they can find a parking space easily where this principle is followed. It still leaves most parking heavily subsidised with some heavily profit making. The Economist has a good editorial on this point this week.
A part of the Bermondsey dive-under has been opened?!
@Anonymously: Yes, the Sussex Down Slow has been in operation since Christmas….
The next lot (Charing Cross Up and Down) goes into operation over the August/September blockade…