WRO,

People who have to travel SOV (single occupant vehicle), each way, or throughout the day, are always going to be the ones experiencing the worst of what the transportation system offers. I don't see the evolution towards a dedicated lane reserved for those forced to SOV, although one possibility would be purchase of a pass allowing one to use bus and carpool lanes.

I'm not denying the high cost of transportation alternatives either. My main reason for entering the discussion is that at some point in terms of human population, the conventional SOV approach fails to function. Then what? Many simply argue that more freeways and roads should be built. I used to be one of "those people." Then I learned to understand the transportation experts who know that we can't just simply build our way out of gridlock by way of endless accommodation of SOVs. Since that's the case, we have to choose an alternative, and all the viable alternatives are not what most people would prefer.

Krijack,

Planning that makes sense. Yes, but makes sense to who? And why? And how? As for forcing people how to live, I thought that was a conservative's attribute. Joking; both sides do it, usually failing to recognize it.

Unfortunately I think the market approach fails to solve the issue, and to the extent that it does solve it, it does so with attendant gridlock, extreme pollution, and significant reduction in quality of life. But hey, it's a market solution, and if you want to count on that to always float your boat, by all means advocate for it. The problem with that approach is that most leftys and rightys don't really want that as the outcome.

I suppose you're right in assuming that most planners are liberals, since a true conservative is likely wedded to market forces alone, no matter how badly it degrades the environment or human experience, but I digress. Planners work for governments, and planners that work for liberal governments will develop plans that reflect the goals of those governments, which may or may not have any relevance to economic efficiency.

I disagree with your contention that when gridlock is bad enough, developers will create inner city living that people want. They will do that for the affluent. But they will develop something marginally affordable for those who qualify only for low paying inner city jobs that they cannot afford to commute to, even if that results in 6 people living in a 2 person apartment, or equivalent. By definition, the unregulated market solves problems, but the unregulated market doesn't care how ugly the solution is or how low the quality of life that results. Effective planning can offset some of the disadvantages of an unregulated market, and I guess I'm taking the long way around in saying that is the purpose of transportation planning. The vast majority of Americans prefer an SOV, but we know that isn't a solution for downtown sections of large cities. Therefore, what is the next best, most preferable alternative?

Sg