Sierra Club's 50 Best and Worst Transportation Projects In the United States

[hbelkins]

What could be an interesting thread has gone off the rails.  Posting a user's full name?  Seems IDiOTic to me (did I do that right?).

I wish we had more full identification around here instead of less. My name's certainly not a secret. It took someone privately informing me that NE2 was someone I'd known in a prior life as SPUI. For a long time, I thought NE2 was Randy Hersh.

[J N Winkler]

For a long time, I thought NE2 was Randy Hersh.

Really?  The vast difference in writing style didn't mean anything to you?

[hbelkins]

For a long time, I thought NE2 was Randy Hersh.

Really?  The vast difference in writing style didn't mean anything to you?

I figured he'd cleaned it up for here, especially since his MTR-style rants would not have been tolerated.

His dislike for certain highway projects and certain people were what prompted my thoughts.

[Ned Weasel]

Are there any studies that have actually disproved induced demand?  Everything I've read supports the theory.  Seriously, I'd like to know what I'm missing.

Without actually reading the studies, I'm going to assume that they are created and/or funded by organizations that would rather see mass transit options.

Many of the studies on induced demand were actually funded by universities and conducted by professors.  Robert Cervero, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, has conducted several studies and written numerous articles on this topic ("Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis" from 2003 seems to be one of his more important articles on the topic, and it gives a pretty thoroughly nuanced explanation of this phenomenon, emphasizing the importance of the elasticity factor that J N Winkler mentioned on this thread).  These studies are usually published in peer-reviewed, academic journals.  While that doesn't mean they are necessarily always 100-percent accurate, the intent is ostensibly scientific research, rather than propaganda.

It's also discussed in good detail in the book Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt, which is about as close to a book for roadgeeks as mainstream-published books get, and I'm not aware that the author represents a special-interest organization.  You will, however, find induced demand used as a persuasion point in biased literature as well.  New Urbanist books are a good example of that.  But the point is that not all of the research that supports the induced demand theory was done to support an agenda.

[NE2]

But... but... peer-reviewed journals claim global warming is true! And that's an obvious commie lie!

[J N Winkler]

I figured he'd cleaned it up for here, especially since his MTR-style rants would not have been tolerated.

I meant in terms of stylistic features such as sentence structure, capitalization, punctuation, use of abbreviations, and so on.  Randy had a distinctive approach toward composition which had a lot to do with typing two-fingered and being verbal rather than literary.  I doubt he ever learned how to touch-type and even if he had, that would have been very difficult for him, especially in his last year, because of diabetic neuropathy.  He could easily have toned down his opposition to Corridor H, the ICC, and so on to avoid giving himself away to the moderators on this board, but it would have been very difficult for him to alter his compositional signature.

Randy had a very broad tonal range--we can all point to posts that looked like expressions of raw rage, but there were plenty of others where he was clearly enjoying a good joke.

NE2, on the other hand, writes a lot like SPUI did in MTR:  short sentences with standard American English punctuation and capitalization, and minimal usage of subordinate and dependent clauses except in relatively less common instances of paragraph-length exposition.  The tonal range is very narrow--factual to vinegary-sharp.  Many posts are lists of feature examples or one-line corrections, which was also true of SPUI's posts in MTR.  The style of responding to challenge is similar also, though I remember the old SPUI being more ready to engage intellectually with an opponent (no "baa" or "*yawn*").

I suspected right away just from post style that NE2 was SPUI.  There were only two reasons I doubted this identification.  As far as I could tell from an occasional dip into Wikipedia, NE2 and SPUI are separate user identities, and Wikipedia discourages sock puppets if it does not actually ban them.  Geography also didn't seem to match; NE2 is based in central Florida, while the "fun" SPUI of the MTR nostalgists was a denizen of greater Boston and suburban New Jersey.

His dislike for certain highway projects and certain people were what prompted my thoughts.

A word to the wise, if I may?  You haven't done yourself any favors by airing your suspicion that Randy Hersh was behind NE2's open expressions of disapproval for Corridor H and the people advocating it.  Aside from the lack of factual basis (posts which align with Randy's view on a given issue do not by themselves imply that Randy was orchestrating counter-advocacy, let alone posting through a sock puppet), it makes you look kind of paranoid, and the resulting wild-goose chase sets you up for a pratfall.

There are a lot of people besides NE2 and Randy Hersh who don't like Corridor H.  Steve has criticized it also on the basis of excessive use of cut and fill instead of tunnel.  I happen to agree with these criticisms, but have kept silent since I haven't felt this is a battle I need to join.  There are plenty of people who doubt the estimates of time savings and distance reductions which have been put forward and defended using Google Maps, but say nothing because they don't have the time or interest to argue the toss.  I am sure there are others who are at best tepidly enthusiastic about (if not outright opposed to) Corridor H, but say nothing in this and other forums because they just don't have the personal stake in it that you do, or that Randy did.

[Scott5114]

I figured he'd cleaned it up for here, especially since his MTR-style rants would not have been tolerated.

I meant in terms of stylistic features such as sentence structure, capitalization, punctuation, use of abbreviations, and so on.  Randy had a distinctive approach toward composition which had a lot to do with typing two-fingered and being verbal rather than literary.  I doubt he ever learned how to touch-type and even if he had, that would have been very difficult for him, especially in his last year, because of diabetic neuropathy.  He could easily have toned down his opposition to Corridor H, the ICC, and so on to avoid giving himself away to the moderators on this board, but it would have been very difficult for him to alter his compositional signature.

Randy had a very broad tonal range--we can all point to posts that looked like expressions of raw rage, but there were plenty of others where he was clearly enjoying a good joke.

NE2, on the other hand, writes a lot like SPUI did in MTR:  short sentences with standard American English punctuation and capitalization, and minimal usage of subordinate and dependent clauses except in relatively less common instances of paragraph-length exposition.  The tonal range is very narrow--factual to vinegary-sharp.  Many posts are lists of feature examples or one-line corrections, which was also true of SPUI's posts in MTR.  The style of responding to challenge is similar also, though I remember the old SPUI being more ready to engage intellectually with an opponent (no "baa" or "*yawn*").

I am kind of surprised you bothered to note all of this. While I can often figure out who posted something due to typing style for users more familiar to me (the difference between, say, your posts and one of Jake's is pretty blatant), I usually cannot articulate why (other than something vague and obvious like "Jake doesn't capitalize a whole lot and J.N. Winker generally posts rather long, informative posts").

I suspected right away just from post style that NE2 was SPUI.  There were only two reasons I doubted this identification.  As far as I could tell from an occasional dip into Wikipedia, NE2 and SPUI are separate user identities, and Wikipedia discourages sock puppets if it does not actually ban them.

IP address information regarding logged-in users on Wikipedia is exclusive to certain users, called checkusers, who have the functionality to view IP information for the purpose of investigating suspected sock puppets. For that reason, we had no definite way of proving the two were the same person, and what suspicions we may have had were not sufficient to request the matter be looked into, and thus it wasn't really a matter that anyone bothered to pursue, especially since the accounts were, for the most part, not being used concurrently.

[english si]

As some people remember voices easily, JN remembers writing styles easily. Not that weird.

That he can describe them is where it gets a bit weird. However, if I was pushed, I could probably describe a fair few voices that I can tell by sound (if I was good at describing, that is: as I'm not, I can't).

[agentsteel53]

I am kind of surprised you bothered to note all of this. While I can often figure out who posted something due to typing style for users more familiar to me (the difference between, say, your posts and one of Jake's is pretty blatant), I usually cannot articulate why (other than something vague and obvious like "Jake doesn't capitalize a whole lot and J.N. Winker generally posts rather long, informative posts").

I think the only capitals I drop with any regularity are those which begin sentences. 

[cpzilliacus]

Are there any studies that have actually disproved induced demand?  Everything I've read supports the theory.  Seriously, I'd like to know what I'm missing.

Without actually reading the studies, I'm going to assume that they are created and/or funded by organizations that would rather see mass transit options.

Many of the studies on induced demand were actually funded by universities and conducted by professors.  Robert Cervero, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, has conducted several studies and written numerous articles on this topic ("Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis" from 2003 seems to be one of his more important articles on the topic, and it gives a pretty thoroughly nuanced explanation of this phenomenon, emphasizing the importance of the elasticity factor that J N Winkler mentioned on this thread).  These studies are usually published in peer-reviewed, academic journals.  While that doesn't mean they are necessarily always 100-percent accurate, the intent is ostensibly scientific research, rather than propaganda.

It's also discussed in good detail in the book Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt, which is about as close to a book for roadgeeks as mainstream-published books get, and I'm not aware that the author represents a special-interest organization.  You will, however, find induced demand used as a persuasion point in biased literature as well.  New Urbanist books are a good example of that.  But the point is that not all of the research that supports the induced demand theory was done to support an agenda.

There was a badly-flawed Washington Post article from 1999 that discussed "induced" demand on Maryland's I-270, which  was extensively widened in the late 1980's and  early 1990's.

It is still online (and not in the Post pay archives): Md.'s Lesson: Widen the Roads, Drivers Will Come

You can read it yourself, but the conclusion was that the capacity improvements were "eaten up" by "induced" demand in less than 10 years, when forecasts said it should have taken many more years than that.

But what the article made no mention of is the network assumptions for I-270 when the forecasting work  was done.  Those assumptions included (what we now call) Md. 200 (ICC) as well as an Outer Beltway link to Northern Virginia being in place by the time that the article was written.  Md. 200 is now there after many more years of argument, but the connection to Virginia is not. 

[hobsini2]

Reading through some of the commentary by the Sierra Club when I came across some misinformation (surprise, surprise).

On the proposed I-3 from Savannah to Knoxville, they said "a shorter interstate highway route from
Savannah to Knoxville already exists".  The I-40/I-26/I-95 route (which I think is what they are referring to) is 419 miles from I-95's exit with GA 21 to I-40/I-140 jct.  Those are the 2 junctions that seem to be the start and end of the project.  The corridor is roughly 390 miles. 

I have no problem if the Sierra Club wants to be against a highway like this but don't give misinformation.

[cpzilliacus]

NE2, on the other hand, writes a lot like SPUI did in MTR:  short sentences with standard American English punctuation and capitalization, and minimal usage of subordinate and dependent clauses except in relatively less common instances of paragraph-length exposition.  The tonal range is very narrow--factual to vinegary-sharp.  Many posts are lists of feature examples or one-line corrections, which was also true of SPUI's posts in MTR.  The style of responding to challenge is similar also, though I remember the old SPUI being more ready to engage intellectually with an opponent (no "baa" or "*yawn*").

This is very impressive.  You sound like a writing analyst that might work for the NSA, the CIA or the FBI!

There are a lot of people besides NE2 and Randy Hersh who don't like Corridor H.  Steve has criticized it also on the basis of excessive use of cut and fill instead of tunnel.  I happen to agree with these criticisms, but have kept silent since I haven't felt this is a battle I need to join.  There are plenty of people who doubt the estimates of time savings and distance reductions which have been put forward and defended using Google Maps, but say nothing because they don't have the time or interest to argue the toss.  I am sure there are others who are at best tepidly enthusiastic about (if not outright opposed to) Corridor H, but say nothing in this and other forums because they just don't have the personal stake in it that you do, or that Randy did.

I don't mind Corridor H. 

I consider it a classic example of building a highway with the hope that it will induce demand, and induced demand for highway capacity through the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia is a good thing.

[hbelkins]

I consider it a classic example of building a highway with the hope that it will induce demand, and induced demand for highway capacity through the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia is a good thing.

That was basically the purpose behind the whole Appalachian system. Economic development, and making it easier to get from Point A to Point B. No need to go through Knoxville, Lexington and Cincinnati if you're trying to get from Asheville to Columbus. You can drive US 23 the whole way on a four-lane highway.

A word to the wise, if I may?  You haven't done yourself any favors by airing your suspicion that Randy Hersh was behind NE2's open expressions of disapproval for Corridor H and the people advocating it.  Aside from the lack of factual basis (posts which align with Randy's view on a given issue do not by themselves imply that Randy was orchestrating counter-advocacy, let alone posting through a sock puppet), it makes you look kind of paranoid, and the resulting wild-goose chase sets you up for a pratfall.

I don't particularly care. I'm pretty well-known in the "roadgeek" world, and know many of the folks here, on MTR and "Roadgeek" and the various regional Yahoo groups personally. They know me and they know I'm not paranoid.  I had no clue NE2 was SPUI until a few months ago, and even then there were a few who thought his name was Nate E-something II and NE2 was an abbreviation of his name. And then two people who know him personally told me in person recently.

There are a lot of people besides NE2 and Randy Hersh who don't like Corridor H.  Steve has criticized it also on the basis of excessive use of cut and fill instead of tunnel.  I happen to agree with these criticisms, but have kept silent since I haven't felt this is a battle I need to join.  There are plenty of people who doubt the estimates of time savings and distance reductions which have been put forward and defended using Google Maps, but say nothing because they don't have the time or interest to argue the toss.  I am sure there are others who are at best tepidly enthusiastic about (if not outright opposed to) Corridor H, but say nothing in this and other forums because they just don't have the personal stake in it that you do, or that Randy did.

There's a difference between not liking the way a project is built, and being opposed to it entirely. I don't know why Randy singled out that one project, except for the fact that he seemed to hate rural America (especially the mountain region) and wanted no improvements there. Or maybe it was because I think the project is worthwhile and his hatred of me fueled his dislike for the road. The only personal stake I have in the road is that I will use it to cross the Central Appalachians instead of I-64 or I-68 when the need arises.

I am kind of surprised you bothered to note all of this. While I can often figure out who posted something due to typing style for users more familiar to me (the difference between, say, your posts and one of Jake's is pretty blatant), I usually cannot articulate why (other than something vague and obvious like "Jake doesn't capitalize a whole lot and J.N. Winker generally posts rather long, informative posts").

Jake is e.e. cummings!!!!!!

I suspected right away just from post style that NE2 was SPUI.  There were only two reasons I doubted this identification.  As far as I could tell from an occasional dip into Wikipedia, NE2 and SPUI are separate user identities, and Wikipedia discourages sock puppets if it does not actually ban them.

IP address information regarding logged-in users on Wikipedia is exclusive to certain users, called checkusers, who have the functionality to view IP information for the purpose of investigating suspected sock puppets. For that reason, we had no definite way of proving the two were the same person, and what suspicions we may have had were not sufficient to request the matter be looked into, and thus it wasn't really a matter that anyone bothered to pursue, especially since the accounts were, for the most part, not being used concurrently.

You're talking Wiki (and from what I understand, something that happened there is what caused SPUI to morph into NE2) but on first glance, I thought you were talking about here and checking IP addys from posters here.

I know that Randy was here. I don't know if he was a registered user who never posted, or posted in a style vastly different than what he used on MTR (he generally behaved himself on Roadgeek and was actually a positive contributor); if he just lurked without creating an account here; or if he had someone feeing him information, but he frequently referenced posts here (by me and others) on MTR.

I haven't looked at the Sierra Club list, and likely won't because I'm not interested in reading the rants of a bunch of anti-progress flat-earthers  but I'm sure Randy probably would have approved of it.

[J N Winkler]

. . . or if he had someone feeding him information, but he frequently referenced posts here (by me and others) on MTR.

This is another thing I don't understand--why would Randy need a third party to "feed" him information?  Logging in does not make any difference to the boards that are visible unless you are a privileged user (I assume this forum has "management" or "committee" boards which are visible only to moderators and other admins, with access linked to their accounts).  Randy could, and did, surf to this forum on his own to find material that was of interest to him.

[agentsteel53]

(I assume this forum has "management" or "committee" boards which are visible only to moderators and other admins, with access linked to their accounts)

correct.  all hail the Cult of the Orange Bronco!

[Alps]

(I assume this forum has "management" or "committee" boards which are visible only to moderators and other admins, with access linked to their accounts)

correct.  all hail the Cult of the Orange Bronco!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxPF9AeHznE

[kphoger]

correct.  all hail the Colt of the Orange Bronco!

FTFY (not).

[Henry]

Sounds like the biggest pain-in-the-@$$ of all NIMBYs, if you know what I mean! They seem to never want any new roads built anywhere, yet they're all for public transit.

[Big John]

Sounds like the biggest pain-in-the-@$$ of all NIMBYs, if you know what I mean! They seem to never want any new roads built anywhere, yet they're all for public transit.

More like BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

[Henry]

Sounds like the biggest pain-in-the-@$$ of all NIMBYs, if you know what I mean! They seem to never want any new roads built anywhere, yet they're all for public transit.

More like BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

Even worse still.

[vdeane]

. . . or if he had someone feeding him information, but he frequently referenced posts here (by me and others) on MTR.

This is another thing I don't understand--why would Randy need a third party to "feed" him information?  Logging in does not make any difference to the boards that are visible unless you are a privileged user (I assume this forum has "management" or "committee" boards which are visible only to moderators and other admins, with access linked to their accounts).  Randy could, and did, surf to this forum on his own to find material that was of interest to him.

Actually, the Fictional Freeways and Mass Transit boards are only visible to registered users, though this is a recent development.

[cpzilliacus]

It's also discussed in good detail in the book Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt, which is about as close to a book for roadgeeks as mainstream-published books get, and I'm not aware that the author represents a special-interest organization.  You will, however, find induced demand used as a persuasion point in biased literature as well.  New Urbanist books are a good example of that.  But the point is that not all of the research that supports the induced demand theory was done to support an agenda.

Why no discussion of "induced" demand for rail transit?

[jeffandnicole]

It's also discussed in good detail in the book Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt, which is about as close to a book for roadgeeks as mainstream-published books get, and I'm not aware that the author represents a special-interest organization.  You will, however, find induced demand used as a persuasion point in biased literature as well.  New Urbanist books are a good example of that.  But the point is that not all of the research that supports the induced demand theory was done to support an agenda.

Why no discussion of "induced" demand for rail transit?

It definitely exists, but to get anyone to listen is tough.  Take I-295 in NJ - many people will point to completing the 3 miles between Exit 57 - US 130 & Exit 60 - I-195 - as the reason for the many new homes in the area.  They conveniently ignore the fact that many of those people in the area are driving to the relatively new NJ Transit Hamilton Train Station.  That one station has created the opportunity for people to work in New York City, while living 60 miles or more away near Trenton & points south. 

[Brandon]

It's also discussed in good detail in the book Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt, which is about as close to a book for roadgeeks as mainstream-published books get, and I'm not aware that the author represents a special-interest organization.  You will, however, find induced demand used as a persuasion point in biased literature as well.  New Urbanist books are a good example of that.  But the point is that not all of the research that supports the induced demand theory was done to support an agenda.

Why no discussion of "induced" demand for rail transit?

Because only roads can "induce" traffic, not transit, or a sidewalk, silly. 

[cpzilliacus]

It's also discussed in good detail in the book Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt, which is about as close to a book for roadgeeks as mainstream-published books get, and I'm not aware that the author represents a special-interest organization.  You will, however, find induced demand used as a persuasion point in biased literature as well.  New Urbanist books are a good example of that.  But the point is that not all of the research that supports the induced demand theory was done to support an agenda.

Why no discussion of "induced" demand for rail transit?

It definitely exists, but to get anyone to listen is tough.  Take I-295 in NJ - many people will point to completing the 3 miles between Exit 57 - US 130 & Exit 60 - I-195 - as the reason for the many new homes in the area.  They conveniently ignore the fact that many of those people in the area are driving to the relatively new NJ Transit Hamilton Train Station.  That one station has created the opportunity for people to work in New York City, while living 60 miles or more away near Trenton & points south. 

There is a similar analogy to be found in Jefferson and Berkeley Counties, W.Va. (eastern panhandle of the Mountaineer State).

The Maryland Transit Administration's MARC Brunswick Line (commuter rail) serves several stations in those counties (the western end of the line is in Martinsburg).  It is about 80 miles by highway to Washington Union Station from Martinsburg, and about 80 70 miles from the Harpers Ferry, W.Va. to Washington.

Both counties are de-facto suburbs of Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia, and every ad I have ever seen for homes for sale in those counties shows the distance to the nearest MARC station.

Were there a freeway connection directly from the Eastern Panhandle to Washington, there would be loud screams about "induced" demand from environmental groups and the Smart Growth industry.