Regional Boards > Mid-Atlantic

I-495 and I-270 P3 Program

<< < (77/78) > >>

Plutonic Panda:

--- Quote from: kernals12 on October 02, 2021, 08:05:38 AM ---
--- Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2021, 11:32:43 PM ---
--- Quote from: kernals12 on October 01, 2021, 10:54:33 PM ---The "induced demand" argument is much older than you think, it's been used since at least the 70s to argue against road building. Clearly it's not really influential.

--- End quote ---
I thought the argument really became in the limelight during the 90s but I gotta disagree with you here that it doesnít play a role in decision making when a DOT drops a proposed project. It used time and time again especially by those involved in successfully delaying/halting proposed improvements to I-710, HDC, and I-5/I-605 proposals in the LA area.

--- End quote ---

I thought the arguments against those projects were noise, pollution, homes demolished, and, above all, lack of funds.

--- End quote ---
Iíve never heard lack of funds given they are funded by a 120 billion dollar transportation bill for LA Metro but the other points are part of the argument along with induced demand being a big talking point from the opposition.

cpzilliacus:

--- Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2021, 11:58:33 AM ---Induced demand, or even the claim that it is induced demand, doesn't necessarily mean it's a one-to-one ratio. As long as traffic is still congested during rush hours, those that were against widening will claim that the widening did nothing to help, and traffic quickly filled up the lanes.
--- End quote ---

A few thoughts:

1. Many promoters of "induced" demand for road capacity are probably  speaking of latent demand, which is not the same thing.

2.  Every credible study of induced demand I have seen has been about added "free" (or untolled) road capacity, and especially not about tolls that vary by time-of-day.  These studies frequently look at road traffic volumes only and do not control for changes in population and employment in nearby areas.

3. I have never seen any study about induced demand by a new transit line, even though I think such a thing exists in some travel markets served by transit.  But I have never heard someone oppose a transit line due to induced demand.

4.  I also believe that land use restrictions by local governments (taking developable land off the market to "save agriculture" and "preserve our rural legacy"  and "open space preservation" and other similar phrases) can and does cause "leapfrog" development to the next jurisdiction out which is also a form of "induced" demand.

Plutonic Panda:
Toll rate plan finalized:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/11/18/maryland-beltway-270-toll-rates/

kernals12:
The Washington Post Editorial Board is once again on the attack:

--- Quote ---Mr. Hogan was already forced to pare back his toll road plan to accommodate local opposition. That was followed by a state report suggesting that the downsized project ó covering just segments of the Beltway and I-270 ó wouldnít do much for evening rush-hour traffic by 2045. Opponents seized on the report as proof the plan isnít worth it. In fact, it should serve as a warning: Without a more farsighted project that would add capacity to Marylandís full length of the Beltway and I-270 to Frederick, everyone will suffer.
--- End quote ---

1995hoo:
Why does that surprise you?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version