This is one reason I am typically eager to proceed with rail lines and other mass transit, even when the direct case does not seem to justify the cost. You have to start somewhere. If for example we do hook up a point in Los Angeles to Las Vegas via a new high speed rail line, then there is hope that this provides impetus to go further, also most of the gains are impossible to capture. So given a private group is remotely considering doing it, we should be ecstatic.
In the introduction phase, you invest in something and don’t get much in terms of results.
In the growth phase you hit some sort of threshold where marginal investments pay huge dividends.
In the maturity phase there is some sort of saturation where marginal investments aren’t really going to do anything anymore.
Using this language, I think what you’re saying is that in the context of transportation infrastructure, you’re typically eager to proceed along in the introduction phase because doing so makes it more likely that we then invest even more, enough to reach that coveted growth phase. Or something like that.
I’m not sure what to think here. At least in the context of bike infrastructure, I’m skeptical.
I’ve been involved with some urbanism and biking communities recently and I think it’s largely accepted that in North America, connectivity is pretty poor. I don’t think that movements along the introduction phase have gotten us meaningfully close to the growth phase. Surveys show huge gaps between how much people want to bike and how much they actually bike, so I think we’re definitely still in the introduction phase. And in Portland OR where I live, the city has a goal for 25% of all trips to be taken by bicycle by 2030. Right now we’re at 6-7%. Given the upcoming projects and pace of development, I don’t think anyone thinks the 2030 goal is at all realistic.
I’m not very knowledgeable about mass transit. Maybe in that context your expectation is more likely to play out. I feel skeptical though.
Since writing Beware unfinished bridges I’ve come across what I think is a better model: S-curves. The idea is that:
In the introduction phase, you invest in something and don’t get much in terms of results.
In the growth phase you hit some sort of threshold where marginal investments pay huge dividends.
In the maturity phase there is some sort of saturation where marginal investments aren’t really going to do anything anymore.
Using this language, I think what you’re saying is that in the context of transportation infrastructure, you’re typically eager to proceed along in the introduction phase because doing so makes it more likely that we then invest even more, enough to reach that coveted growth phase. Or something like that.
I’m not sure what to think here. At least in the context of bike infrastructure, I’m skeptical.
I’ve been involved with some urbanism and biking communities recently and I think it’s largely accepted that in North America, connectivity is pretty poor. I don’t think that movements along the introduction phase have gotten us meaningfully close to the growth phase. Surveys show huge gaps between how much people want to bike and how much they actually bike, so I think we’re definitely still in the introduction phase. And in Portland OR where I live, the city has a goal for 25% of all trips to be taken by bicycle by 2030. Right now we’re at 6-7%. Given the upcoming projects and pace of development, I don’t think anyone thinks the 2030 goal is at all realistic.
I’m not very knowledgeable about mass transit. Maybe in that context your expectation is more likely to play out. I feel skeptical though.