Induced Demand Debunked with one Chart

[Scott5114]

Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.

Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.

Is the bolded statement actually true?  I thought I remembered reading somewhere that capacity improvement diminishes with each added lane.  That is to say, the improvement achieved by going from 2 to 3 lanes is greater than the improvement achieved by going from 4 to 5 lanes.  If that's the case, then adding a 13th lane would have very little benefit compared to adding a 2nd lane.

You are correct in that there are decreasing marginal returns, but that is not the point being made. The point is that if you have some number of lanes where you tell people to go ride the bus instead that is entirely arbitrary. Your point is addressed by my second point regarding an alternative route as being more appropriate than a 13th or 14th lane.
Also note that the above assumes a true 13 lane wide freeway, which is not a good example because few roads are built that way. The Jersey Turnpike is a good example, it has I believe 12 lanes, but segmented to function as two 6 lane roads, which means that the marginal effectiveness of the last 6 lanes built is collectively the same as the first 6 lanes built.

I think the number in the quoted post is essentially picked from thin air as a rhetorical device and is not meant to endorse that as a hard-and-fast rule. Rather, he's saying that if you find yourself adding that many lanes to a road, it may be time to step back and assess whether there might be some other fundamental problem that needs to be solved, since just adding lanes clearly isn't working.

[Dirt Roads]

Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.

Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.

Is the bolded statement actually true?  I thought I remembered reading somewhere that capacity improvement diminishes with each added lane.  That is to say, the improvement achieved by going from 2 to 3 lanes is greater than the improvement achieved by going from 4 to 5 lanes.  If that's the case, then adding a 13th lane would have very little benefit compared to adding a 2nd lane.

You are correct in that there are decreasing marginal returns, but that is not the point being made. The point is that if you have some number of lanes where you tell people to go ride the bus instead that is entirely arbitrary. Your point is addressed by my second point regarding an alternative route as being more appropriate than a 13th or 14th lane.
Also note that the above assumes a true 13 lane wide freeway, which is not a good example because few roads are built that way. The Jersey Turnpike is a good example, it has I believe 12 lanes, but segmented to function as two 6 lane roads, which means that the marginal effectiveness of the last 6 lanes built is collectively the same as the first 6 lanes built.

I think the number in the quoted post is essentially picked from thin air as a rhetorical device and is not meant to endorse that as a hard-and-fast rule. Rather, he's saying that if you find yourself adding that many lanes to a road, it may be time to step back and assess whether there might be some other fundamental problem that needs to be solved, since just adding lanes clearly isn't working.

Indeed.  There are way too many examples of highways that were widened when other improvements would have resolved the issues better.  In many cases, the issues are related to high volume onramps located too close to freeway splits.  Flyovers work much better in those situations.

[HighwayStar]

Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.

Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.

Is the bolded statement actually true?  I thought I remembered reading somewhere that capacity improvement diminishes with each added lane.  That is to say, the improvement achieved by going from 2 to 3 lanes is greater than the improvement achieved by going from 4 to 5 lanes.  If that's the case, then adding a 13th lane would have very little benefit compared to adding a 2nd lane.

You are correct in that there are decreasing marginal returns, but that is not the point being made. The point is that if you have some number of lanes where you tell people to go ride the bus instead that is entirely arbitrary. Your point is addressed by my second point regarding an alternative route as being more appropriate than a 13th or 14th lane.
Also note that the above assumes a true 13 lane wide freeway, which is not a good example because few roads are built that way. The Jersey Turnpike is a good example, it has I believe 12 lanes, but segmented to function as two 6 lane roads, which means that the marginal effectiveness of the last 6 lanes built is collectively the same as the first 6 lanes built.

I think the number in the quoted post is essentially picked from thin air as a rhetorical device and is not meant to endorse that as a hard-and-fast rule. Rather, he's saying that if you find yourself adding that many lanes to a road, it may be time to step back and assess whether there might be some other fundamental problem that needs to be solved, since just adding lanes clearly isn't working.

Indeed.  There are way too many examples of highways that were widened when other improvements would have resolved the issues better.  In many cases, the issues are related to high volume onramps located too close to freeway splits.  Flyovers work much better in those situations.

That is essentially what I was getting at, that other road improvements are relevant at that point. But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative, which is NOT building flyover ramps etc.

[SeriesE]

I suppose more narrower freeways may be better at reducing congestion in the region than fewer wider freeways.

[hotdogPi]

I suppose more narrower freeways may be better at reducing congestion in the region than fewer wider freeways.

I think the surface road network quality is important, too. The Boston metro area has very few 45+ mph arterials.

(This paragraph is pre-pandemic.) I've also noticed that most buses are near-empty. In my area, the one that goes Lawrence-Lowell-Haverhill is decently full, but that's the only one that is. More people could start using buses, and if the full one gets overfull, run it more often. It's also cheaper than driving in many cases: $1.25 (CharlieCard reduces it to $1.00 for the MVRTA but not the LRTA) each way regardless of distance, with one free transfer.

[kernals12]

I suppose more narrower freeways may be better at reducing congestion in the region than fewer wider freeways.

I think the surface road network quality is important, too. The Boston metro area has very few 45+ mph arterials.

(This paragraph is pre-pandemic.) I've also noticed that most buses are near-empty. In my area, the one that goes Lawrence-Lowell-Haverhill is decently full, but that's the only one that is. More people could start using buses, and if the full one gets overfull, run it more often. It's also cheaper than driving in many cases: $1.25 (CharlieCard reduces it to $1.00 for the MVRTA but not the LRTA) each way regardless of distance, with one free transfer.

Assuming they'd wind up looking like MA 9, thank God for that

[kernals12]

I suppose more narrower freeways may be better at reducing congestion in the region than fewer wider freeways.

And also, if you have narrower freeways but more of them, they're more likely to be where people need them.

[interstatefan990]

A lot of it depends on driver behavior as well. The speed differential is related to congestion. Same thing with passing, adherence to merging etiquette, frequency of cutting off, differences in following distances, etc.

[Ned Weasel]

But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative

Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways?  Why not clean ones?  What am I missing here?

[HighwayStar]

But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative

Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways?  Why not clean ones?  What am I missing here?

There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.

[hotdogPi]

But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative

Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways?  Why not clean ones?  What am I missing here?

There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.

If it's full enough that people need to stand, run it more often.

[HighwayStar]

But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative

Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways?  Why not clean ones?  What am I missing here?

There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.

If it's full enough that people need to stand, run it more often.

At rush hour in many cities they run very often yet have that issue anyway. But even having a seat does little to remove the lady next to me that is clipping her fingernails or the guy across from me who has not bathed in a month or the other guy on my other side with a bag of cans he has been picking up....You could run one every 3 seconds and it still would not make the commute as pleasant as a car ride in a bad car, let alone a nice car.

[kernals12]

I'm glad there's someone else on this forum who tells it like it is w.r.t. public transit.

Also, train stations are dangerously polluted.

[SeriesE]

But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative

Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways?  Why not clean ones?  What am I missing here?

There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.

Trains in other countries manages to be both clean and efficient. I rather commute by public transit if possible and save driving for weekend pleasure driving trips.

[Ned Weasel]

At rush hour in many cities they run very often yet have that issue anyway. But even having a seat does little to remove the lady next to me that is clipping her fingernails or the guy across from me who has not bathed in a month or the other guy on my other side with a bag of cans he has been picking up....You could run one every 3 seconds and it still would not make the commute as pleasant as a car ride in a bad car, let alone a nice car.

None of this is evidence that the subway trains themselves are filthy.  You've shifted your criticism from the cleanliness of the subway trains to your dislike for the people you encounter on the trains.  That's different.  And on that note--

What the hell is wrong with picking up cans, and how the hell are you supposed to transport them other than in a bag?  Is doing something environmentally responsible like picking up littered recycleable material and then exchanging it for a monetary incentive a bad thing?

How do you know how long the guy across from you hasn't bathed?  Maybe you don't like the way he smells, but do you like it when you encounter folks who smell like a huge cloud of cologne?  A lot of folks don't like that kind of smell either.

Is it really common to clip one's fingernails on a subway train?  It sure takes a lot of talent to be able to do it in a moving vehicle.

Frankly, the real world really doesn't give a **** if you don't like the people you encounter on public transit.  Whatever mode of travel you want to take from point A to point B is up to you, and a given situation creates an incentive to take public transit over driving a personal vehicle, well, then we all gotta make personal decisions, right?  Your comment about "cramming people into filthy subways" is fear-mongering.

If you want to make a valid criticism on the topic, there really should be better distinctions made between latent demand and induced demand, because a lot of the stuff I've read barely seems to bother with telling the two apart.  This article is the best I could find in a quick search: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-06/traffic-jam-blame-induced-demand

[kernals12]

But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative

Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways?  Why not clean ones?  What am I missing here?

There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.

Trains in other countries manages to be both clean and efficient. I rather commute by public transit if possible and save driving for weekend pleasure driving trips.

No they don't, and I've travelled out of the country many times.

[SectorZ]

I just realized kernals12 and HighwayStar are the same person.

Although kernals12 hasn't claimed cyclists don't pay taxes.

[ahj2000]

But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative

Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways?  Why not clean ones?  What am I missing here?

There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.

Trains in other countries manages to be both clean and efficient. I rather commute by public transit if possible and save driving for weekend pleasure driving trips.

No they don't, and I've travelled out of the country many times.

Not sure where you're coming from there. In my travels, I've come across some great systems. Not everything is like Chicago L levels of dirt or NY Subway levels of weird people. Heck, even Stateside, the DC Metro is kept clean and is a very pleasant way to get around.
Many EU and Asian cities keep perfectly clean, safe urban rail systems (some graffiti in Europe, but hey, we get graffiti on our bridges and stuff too)

[hotdogPi]

I just realized kernals12 and HighwayStar are the same person.

Although kernals12 hasn't claimed cyclists don't pay taxes.

I looked through HighwayStar's posts to check if post time activity indicated they were the same person. While doing that, I saw that HighwayStar's posting style is not kid-like at all. They may believe the same things, but their posting styles are very different.

[kernals12]

My Dad got pickpocketed on a tram in Nice.

[SeriesE]

But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative

Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways?  Why not clean ones?  What am I missing here?

There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.

Trains in other countries manages to be both clean and efficient. I rather commute by public transit if possible and save driving for weekend pleasure driving trips.

No they don't, and I've travelled out of the country many times.

I should've clarified the countries: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. Plus Hong Kong, which is more like a city.

[Rothman]

I had two decent stints of commuting on DC's Metro.  First time -- Green to Red.  Second time, Orange from VA.

It's dirtier than you think.  I remember riders smearing mucus on thr supports every now and then.

Sure, not all subways are pig stys, but it's also not true that they're squeaky clean.

And, to compare someone who hasn't bathed -- or, one experience I had when I had to commute on SF MUNI's Geary Express: someone who was so drunk they crapped their pants next to me -- to someone wearing too much cologne is ridiculously absurd.  The fact of the matter is that people of all walks of life use public transit and yes, there are those that us of the middle and upper classes deem unclean and, in a lot of cases, they are, indicated by odor.  The high and mighty defense of public transit above just comes across as unrealistic hyperbole, while it is little wonder why an infrequent public transit rider would deem them germ-infested hellholes (an exaggeration, but understandable).

Telling the latter that the subways aren't as bad as they have experienced is an exercise in futility, for they have their perception of reality from such experience and telling them otherwise just sounds like unfounded theorizing.

[HighwayStar]

I had two decent stints of commuting on DC's Metro.  First time -- Green to Red.  Second time, Orange from VA.

It's dirtier than you think.  I remember riders smearing mucus on thr supports every now and then.

Sure, not all subways are pig stys, but it's also not true that they're squeaky clean.

And, to compare someone who hasn't bathed -- or, one experience I had when I had to commute on SF MUNI's Geary Express: someone who was so drunk they crapped their pants next to me -- to someone wearing too much cologne is ridiculously absurd.  The fact of the matter is that people of all walks of life use public transit and yes, there are those that us of the middle and upper classes deem unclean and, in a lot of cases, they are, indicated by odor.  The high and mighty defense of public transit above just comes across as unrealistic hyperbole, while it is little wonder why an infrequent public transit rider would deem them germ-infested hellholes (an exaggeration, but understandable).

Telling the latter that the subways aren't as bad as they have experienced is an exercise in futility, for they have their perception of reality from such experience and telling them otherwise just sounds like unfounded theorizing.

I might ask you how long ago those stints were? I was communing in DC only a couple years ago and it was disgusting. Homeless men carrying bags of cans on the bus, one guy actually brought the SHOPPING CART on and proceeded to argue with the driver until the driver let him stay. Even then I was warned by several people that the trains were no longer safe as bands of teenagers were going around robbing people. And all that was BEFORE the latest round of riots hit. Frankly I have a hard time believing it is not even worse now.

[Ned Weasel]

Homeless men carrying bags of cans on the bus, one guy actually brought the SHOPPING CART on and proceeded to argue with the driver until the driver let him stay.

Again with the cans!  What the hell are you supposed to carry them in other than bags?  Boxes?  Suitcases?  Larger cans?  Treasure chests?

Watch out for all those scary, spooky folks with cans!  I mean, they're carrying BAGS OF CANS--WHAT HORROR!!

Why are you so afraid of homeless people anyway?  Do you have a problem saying "No" if they ask you for money?

My Dad got pickpocketed on a tram in Nice.

30,000+ people per year die in cars and trucks on American roads.  I guess every mode of travel is horrifying and we should all just stay home.

Oh yeah, speaking of that:

Also, train stations are dangerously polluted.

Is saying train stations are dangerously polluted any more of an argument against trains than saying highways are dangerously polluted is an argument against highways?  Because, as I'm sure most people here are aware, they are.  https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/who-is-at-risk/highways

[interstatefan990]

How did we go from debunking induced demand to this? ^