Smart Choices, Less Traffic (http://www.sierraclub.org/transportation/downloads/2012-11-Best-Worst-Transportation-Projects.pdf) contains a state-by-state summary of "Stop" and "Go" projects. They do like the Everglades Skyway ...
baa
Might be more interesting to look at other highway projects they support.
Wekiva Parkway: turns a busy two-lane surface road into a four-lane freeway (and two-lane frontage road) with many more bridges over swamps and bear habitat. Concurrently, the state has acquired a bunch of that land for mitigation. http://florida.sierraclub.org/northeast/ico/pelican%20summer%202004.pdf
This looks more like a list of simplistic "highways bad transit good!" entries. The vast majority of "good" projects are transit and the "bad" are all highways. They oppose the I-5 widening because of "induced demand" (since we all know that's an actual thing that happens) and oppose the Seattle tunnel because it goes under a historic district (would you rather it go through??). Highway oppositions generally include a quote of what gas cost when the project was first proposed (because this is relevant information). Good projects are lauded for increasing density (which isn't inherently a good thing, and not all people want to live in that sort of environment).
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
This looks more like a list of simplistic "highways bad transit good!" entries.
Sure does look like that, doesn't it?
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
The vast majority of "good" projects are transit and the "bad" are all highways. They oppose the I-5 widening because of "induced demand" (since we all know that's an actual thing that happens) and oppose the Seattle tunnel because it goes under a historic district (would you rather it go through??).
"Induced" demand for highway capacity is used in order to make the claim that highways (and not people and not economic activities) somehow create the traffic that rolls on them.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Highway oppositions generally include a quote of what gas cost when the project was first proposed (because this is relevant information). Good projects are lauded for increasing density (which isn't inherently a good thing, and not all people want to live in that sort of environment).
Price of motor fuel is generally included in the travel demand forecasting process that is used to develop estimates of traffic.
More density is appropriate in some places. But I can rattle off several instances of (transit-related) increases in residential densities which have had significant negative impacts.
This thread looks to be simplistic "highways good transit bad!" posts. baa
Quote from: NE2 on December 16, 2012, 09:44:52 PM
This thread looks to be simplistic "highways good transit bad!" posts. baa
Hardly, Dan. Transit is appropriate is some cases, as are highways in others. It really depends on the density of the area and the commuting patterns of the area. That said, the Sierra Club lost their good will around here when they opposed I-355's extension.
Quote from: Brandon on December 16, 2012, 10:50:44 PM
Transit is appropriate is some cases, as are highways in others.
The Sierra Club agrees. The only difference is where they draw the line. They're not in the pay of the dumb growth industry.
Quote from: NE2 on December 16, 2012, 11:05:48 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 16, 2012, 10:50:44 PM
Transit is appropriate is some cases, as are highways in others.
The Sierra Club agrees. The only difference is where they draw the line. They're not in the pay of the dumb growth industry.
"Dumb growth industry", is that like a "vast right wing conspiracy", Dan? Never realized "dumb growth" was directed from above. I always thought it was merely poor planning.
The dumb growth industry is the developers who pressure local governments to approve their projects. Compare to CP's "smart growth industry".
Calling things "dumb" or "smart" does not necessarily make them so.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2012, 12:03:01 AM
Calling things "dumb" or "smart" does not necessarily make them so.
Yep. "Clean coal", anyone? You have to look at the effects, and how dumb growth wastes resources much more than smart growth.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2012, 12:03:01 AM
Calling things "dumb" or "smart" does not necessarily make them so.
That is correct. And many Smart Growth proponents are people that live in low-density suburban or exurban communities (e.g. "dumb" growth) and don't want more people near them.
So Smart Growth is frequently little more than a form of PIITBY (
put it in their back yard).
Bad people always get behind good concepts. Pointing this out is an old tired talking point.
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2012, 02:30:27 AM
Bad people always get behind good concepts. Pointing this out is an old tired talking point.
And good people have bad concepts, so don't get your spui in a twist. "Smart" and "Dumb" are subjective terms. How communities grow is not determined by corrupt developers and corrupt government always, Dan. There are zoning laws that they follow that commonly dictate the type of growth the community has.
Groups like the SC are little more than a crowd of hypocrites that want to pull the ladder of a better life up behind them. Their views on any subject should be dismissed without analysis.
Quote from: Brandon on December 17, 2012, 07:14:32 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2012, 02:30:27 AM
Bad people always get behind good concepts. Pointing this out is an old tired talking point.
And good people have bad concepts, so don't get your spui in a twist. "Smart" and "Dumb" are subjective terms. How communities grow is not determined by corrupt developers and corrupt government always, Dan. There are zoning laws that they follow that commonly dictate the type of growth the community has.
Smart Growth is a term that
may have originated with then-Gov. Parris Glendening (D-Md.) during his 1997 campaign for a second term in office (1998-2002).
He won office in 1994 after scoring a razor-thin victory over Republican Ellen Sauerbrey (R) in the general election. In the 1994 campaign, he advocated in favor of the Md. 200 (ICC) toll road and other highway improvements, though by the end of his first term, he had changed his tune, apparently helped in part by his mistress at the time, Jennifer Crawford, a state employee and hard-core environmentalist (a year or two after he was re-elected in 1998, his affair with Crawford became public and he dumped his wife and moved in with Crawford, got her pregnant and eventually married her).
In 1999 he chose to ignore his so-called Blue Ribbon Panel (its formal name was the Transportation Solutions Group) and decreed that Md. 200 should be cancelled - at the same time, he spent an enormous amount of time and energy (and taxpayer money) on Smart Growth, to the exclusion of most other things. Fortunately, the road remained on the county master plans, and a new environmental impact statement (EIS) was started as soon as Glendening left office at the end of 2002 by his successor, Bob Ehrlich (R). Ehrlich's administration was able to put the work of the Transportation Solutions Group to good work in developing an EIS which was to pass muster with the federal courts in 2007 (the Club and its friends filed two lawsuits, both of which were ultimately rejected).
Quote from: SP Cook on December 17, 2012, 08:27:44 AM
Groups like the SC are little more than a crowd of hypocrites that want to pull the ladder of a better life up behind them. Their views on any subject should be dismissed without analysis.
It has always impressed me how many Sierra Club members (and their allies) preach opposition to any and all improvements to the highway network, as well as suburban lifestyles that involve single-family detached or attached housing - usually demanding that all
new residents (but not suburban members of the Club) in a metropolitan area should be forced to live in high-rise apartment buildings on top of a rail transit station without a private automobile (the only rubber-tired vehicle allowed in the Sierra Club's utopia is a bicycle).
At the same time, the Sierra Club neglects to mention that the rail transit systems that it claims to cherish and support are funded in such a way that assures that if a metropolitan area ever reached the Club's "carfree" ideal, the trains and light rail vehicles and streetcars would
immediately cease operation, for most of them (at least in the United States) are as auto-dependent as any suburban subdivision when it comes to funding never-ending transit operating and capital deficits - and the money to pay for those deficits usually comes from diverted highway user taxes and diverted highway tolls.
It always amuses me to see Sierra Club members show up at a public meeting or hearing in single-occupant vehicles to express the Club's opposition to highway improvements and especially any proposal to add new capacity to the highway network.
yawn
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2012, 09:56:16 AM
yawn
If you don't like the reaction it's getting here, go post it in a transit forum or something. A group of roadgeeks is going to generally turn a wary eye to any report from a biased source that generally slams highways as being borderline Satanic while holding bus projects up as a paragon of All That Is Good And Right in the World as though Jesus Christ himself shits out a bus every morning.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2012, 10:10:35 AM
as though Jesus Christ himself shits out a bus every morning.
/me eagerly waits for NE2 to post a picture.....
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2012, 10:10:35 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2012, 09:56:16 AM
yawn
If you don't like the reaction it's getting here, go post it in a transit forum or something. A group of roadgeeks is going to generally turn a wary eye to any report from a biased source that generally slams highways as being borderline Satanic while holding bus projects up as a paragon of All That Is Good And Right in the World as though Jesus Christ himself shits out a bus every morning.
In my part of the world, the Sierra Club seems to dislike transit buses almost as much as the private automobile. All of the Club's affection seems to be reserved for vehicles that run on steel rails and use "clean electric" traction power (even though they do not generally wish to discuss the source of that "clean" power, including dirty coal-fired electric generating stations).
My take on this is that the Sierra Club isn't anti-highway, they're anti-oil. They typically don't support highway projects not because they feel highways are inherently bad but rather the cars that drive on them are heavy polluters. They support transit because it reduces oil consumption. They're more than happy to support highway projects that they feel have a net environmental benefit such as the Wikeva Parkway.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2012, 10:22:41 AM
In my part of the world, the Sierra Club seems to dislike transit buses almost as much as the private automobile. All of the Club's affection seems to be reserved for vehicles that run on steel rails and use "clean electric" traction power (even though they do not generally wish to discuss the source of that "clean" power, including dirty coal-fired electric generating stations).
Since the Sierra Club is anti-oil, this makes sense. Although I will point out that they typically do support bus projects that run on cleaner fuel sources like natural gas.
As for "clean electric", as you point out that is entirely dependent on how the electricity is generated. There was an article in Time earlier this year talking about how in China, electric cars are worse because of their nasty power plants. Since the US has more stringent regulations on power generation, our electricity is much "cleaner" and an electric car makes more sense from an environmental standpoint. Regardless, I think we can all agree that car exhaust is nasty stuff.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-electric-cars-are-more-polluting-than-gas-guzzlers-at-least-in-china/
Different people have different motivations; that's what makes us human. I think we err when we want to conclude that one side is "correct" and the other is "incorrect." Truth, and good solutions, are not found at the extremes, but are found when considering many different perspectives.
The Sierra Club makes valid points. It's fortunate that Americans finally figured out that we need to start thinking about the future of the planet. But, while some of their points may be valid, it's likely that their full agenda is too extreme. "Smart growth" needs to be a consideration, not an absolute doctrine, and not entirely discarded as a concept.
People, given the choice, seem to prefer suburban lifestyles and longer commutes. This, also, is neither good nor bad; it's a consideration for planners, who want to try to give people what they want, but not beyond what's feasible.
It's good to have these discussions, even (especially) when people disagree. What's unfortunate is when one immerses himself in a pool of the like-minded and sees his beliefs constantly reinforced. This tends to close the mind and make people forget that other views also hold validity. With online forums, radio and television shows and networks tailored toward particular inclinations, Facebook showing you stories they think you're most likely to agree with, and so on, the modern world presents a challenge for those wanting to remain open minded, by making it easy to hear and read only what you agree with. Again, this is only a consideration to be borne in mind, not an assertion that we should abandon these things.
Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2012, 12:31:36 PM
My take on this is that the Sierra Club isn't anti-highway, they're anti-oil. They typically don't support highway projects not because they feel highways are inherently bad but rather the cars that drive on them are heavy polluters. They support transit because it reduces oil consumption. They're more than happy to support highway projects that they feel have a net environmental benefit such as the Wikeva Parkway.
They'd be better off supporting research into better batteries so we can all drive electric cars in the future.
Quote from: deanej on December 17, 2012, 04:17:04 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2012, 12:31:36 PM
My take on this is that the Sierra Club isn't anti-highway, they're anti-oil. They typically don't support highway projects not because they feel highways are inherently bad but rather the cars that drive on them are heavy polluters. They support transit because it reduces oil consumption. They're more than happy to support highway projects that they feel have a net environmental benefit such as the Wikeva Parkway.
They'd be better off supporting research into better batteries so we can all drive electric cars in the future.
They do support research into better batteries. Also, they support research into cleaner traditional fuels like biodiesel and they support higher fuel efficiency standards.
http://www.sierraclub.org/transportation/default.aspx
Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2012, 12:31:36 PM
My take on this is that the Sierra Club isn't anti-highway, they're anti-oil. They typically don't support highway projects not because they feel highways are inherently bad but rather the cars that drive on them are heavy polluters. They support transit because it reduces oil consumption. They're more than happy to support highway projects that they feel have a net environmental benefit such as the Wikeva Parkway.
Where I am from (Maryland near D.C. and Virginia), I have
never heard of the Club saying anything favorable about any highway or highway improvement or highway network addition. Indeed, their comments are uniformly negative, and have been since the 1980's. Sierra was an active participant in efforts (including federal lawsuits) to stop the Woodrow Wilson Bridge reconstruction project and the construction of the InterCounty Connector.
Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2012, 12:31:36 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2012, 10:22:41 AM
In my part of the world, the Sierra Club seems to dislike transit buses almost as much as the private automobile. All of the Club's affection seems to be reserved for vehicles that run on steel rails and use "clean electric" traction power (even though they do not generally wish to discuss the source of that "clean" power, including dirty coal-fired electric generating stations).
Since the Sierra Club is anti-oil, this makes sense. Although I will point out that they typically do support bus projects that run on cleaner fuel sources like natural gas.
As for "clean electric", as you point out that is entirely dependent on how the electricity is generated. There was an article in Time earlier this year talking about how in China, electric cars are worse because of their nasty power plants. Since the US has more stringent regulations on power generation, our electricity is much "cleaner" and an electric car makes more sense from an environmental standpoint. Regardless, I think we can all agree that car exhaust is nasty stuff.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-electric-cars-are-more-polluting-than-gas-guzzlers-at-least-in-china/
My impression of the Sierra Club's policies on electric power is that it want all power generated from solar and wind sources, even though those are (as of now) inappropriate for use as
baseload power generation.
There is a way to provide that baseload electric power generation without any emissions of CO2 at all - it's called nuclear power, but the Club is also opposed to that, according to its Web site (http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/nuc-power.aspx).
So I have a hard time taking anything the Sierra Club does or says seriously.
Quote from: kphoger on December 17, 2012, 10:16:51 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 17, 2012, 10:10:35 AM
as though Jesus Christ himself shits out a bus every morning.
/me eagerly waits for NE2 to post a picture.....
LOL! :rofl: Don't expect Dan Moraseski aka SPUI aka NE2 to do so. (a bit off topic, but...) What the hell happened to you, SPUI? You used to be a fun roadgeek over on mtr once upon a time.
I grew out of my roads=good phase. The Power Broker helped.
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2012, 07:22:16 PM
The Power Broker helped.
Don't take Robert Caro's Power Broker too seriously, especially the chapters that detail highway construction in New York from 1945 to his ouster by Gov. Rockefeller in 1968.
A former colleague of mine (now retired) worked for New York City as a public employee and later as an engineer with a major east coast consulting firm, and told me that the "deal" between Robert Moses and his TBTA and the Port Authority's Austin J. Tobin did not happen in the way that Caro described it.
Another person, a published historian (and a highway skeptic, too), said that the notes that the notes that Caro (supposedly) took of the postwar era are nowhere to be found.
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2012, 07:22:16 PM
I grew out of my roads=good phase. The Power Broker helped.
Dan, roads don't always equal good, nor does transit and anti-growth equal good either. However, groups like the Sierra Club have their own agenda that is effectively a form of NIBMYism, and even borderline racism.
yawn
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2012, 06:15:51 PM
So I have a hard time taking anything the Sierra Club does or says seriously.
I have the same feelings for the Sierra Club that I have for many other idealistic political lobbying groups: their hearts are in the right place and I agree with their stated mission but I don't necessarily agree with their practical agenda.
Quote from: Brandon on December 17, 2012, 09:33:52 PM
Dan, roads don't always equal good, nor does transit and anti-growth equal good either. However, groups like the Sierra Club have their own agenda that is effectively a form of NIBMYism, and even borderline racism.
Racist? How so?
Nothing on the list for Missouri? I'm surprised Phase 3 of the Page Avenue (MO 364) extension didn't make the list.
Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2012, 09:56:43 PM
Racist? How so?
It requires several questionable assumptions:
*The Sierra Club is white.
*The Sierra Club wants everyone except themselves to take transit.
*Transit is always inferior to driving.
Therefore the Sierra Club wants black folks to use an inferior method of getting around.
It's pretty similar to the argument that Planned Parenthood is racist.
Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2012, 09:56:43 PM
I have the same feelings for the Sierra Club that I have for many other idealistic political lobbying groups: their hearts are in the right place and I agree with their stated mission but I don't necessarily agree with their practical agenda.
This sounds like a reasonable view. I may agree with their specific views more than you, but I may still think the projects are better than nothing, given that the better alternatives are DOA in our car culture.
Quote from: froggie on March 13, 2011, 06:01:25 PM
If I-269 was truly intended for freight/long-distance traffic, they wouldn't have 11 exits along it. It'd be more along the lines of 6.
(above quote from Interstate 269 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg93939#msg93939) thread)
I-269 is included in the report as a "STOP" project:
Quote
... truckers believe that the highway, which was first proposed in the early 2000s when gas was around $2.00 per gallon will add 40-plus miles to their trips ....
Another objection is that it is mainly a real estate development scheme, designed to spur the growth of suburbs that will waste tax dollars for the benefit of developers. The regional Memphis Planning Organization is planning more six to eight lane suburban roadways, continuing the trend of auto-dependence in Memphis. This project and the Planning Organization's "Vision Study" may encourage exurban officials to think ahead about what type of development they want, but the impacts of these highway projects on Memphis and the larger region must be part of the future conversation.
This
Memphis Daily News editorial (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/dec/18/editorial-balanced-growth-needed-along-i-269/?partner=RSS) stresses the need to try and develop the I-269 corridor in a collaborative manner. One expressed concern is that the development of office parks in Desoto County, MS may hurt Memphis.
Mississippi and Tennessee both have ongoing I-269 corridor studies. I am not sure how much collaboration, if any, is occurring between the studies. With I-269 expected to be completely open to traffic in 2018, this should be an interesting zoning case study for a long time.
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2012, 09:41:49 PM
yawn
How mature.
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2012, 11:12:09 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2012, 09:56:43 PM
Racist? How so?
It requires several questionable assumptions:
*The Sierra Club is white.
*The Sierra Club wants everyone except themselves to take transit.
*Transit is always inferior to driving.
Therefore the Sierra Club wants black folks to use an inferior method of getting around.
It's pretty similar to the argument that Planned Parenthood is racist.
Quote from: realjd on December 17, 2012, 09:56:43 PM
I have the same feelings for the Sierra Club that I have for many other idealistic political lobbying groups: their hearts are in the right place and I agree with their stated mission but I don't necessarily agree with their practical agenda.
This sounds like a reasonable view. I may agree with their specific views more than you, but I may still think the projects are better than nothing, given that the better alternatives are DOA in our car culture.
Better alternative depends on where you are, Dan. In a highly dense area such as NYC, transit is a highly viable option. In the middle of downstate Illinois, it isn't. However, theses groups do try to make everyone fit a one-size fits all approach. One-size fits all usually fits none.
As for the bigotry, they tend to want to keep out X or Y group as they tend to be more worried about their property values and lifestyle. it's not about keeping X or Y group in transit, it's about keeping themselves separate. otherwise, Dan, explain the large SUVs they drive to their meetings instead of using smaller cars or transit?
Otherwise, Dan, you are a *yawn*.
Louisiana is a GO state, with the New Orleans Streetcar Expansion project being the sole project mentioned.... which is a much-needed project! Just resume Amtrak service between NO and Orlando, and Amtrak will truly be a hub.
Quote from: Brandon on December 18, 2012, 06:54:09 PM
explain the large SUVs they drive to their meetings instead of using smaller cars or transit?
More talking points. Yawn.
Quote from: Brandon on December 18, 2012, 06:54:09 PM
... Dan ... Dan ... Dan ...
I'm imagining you pointing your finger at a cowering dog. Hopefully not what you were going for....
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?).
Quote from: InterstateNG on December 18, 2012, 08:32:11 PM
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 think maybe the rest of us are supposed to be impressed that he knows his name.
My name is Kyle Hoger. Now everybody knows. Big whoop.
...but his name has been posted on the front page of Steve's website for years.
Quote from: Takumi on December 18, 2012, 08:46:05 PM
...but his name has been posted on the front page of Steve's website for years.
And mine's posted here in full too (Brandon Gorte). It's not like it's a secret from the other roadgeeks here.
Quote from: NE2 on December 18, 2012, 07:07:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 18, 2012, 06:54:09 PM
explain the large SUVs they drive to their meetings instead of using smaller cars or transit?
More talking points. Yawn.
I expected as much.
This list is correct on California. Here we can spend Billions on freeway widenings that absolutely do nothing to alleviate traffic but can barely muster enough for a Westside subway to UCLA that will certainly move hundreds of thousands of people better than Wilshire Bl does now. The buses on Wilshire alone already move close to a half of the people on the corridor. The $1 Billion spent on the I-405 Sepulveda Pass carpool lane would have been better spent on a rail tunnel directly connecting the valley to the Westside.
I talked with an Engineer who's working the CA-91 widening project in riverside. It would take 22 lane wide freeways to keep up with demand less than a decade from now. CA-91 would only be half that size after the widening project . What is the point of widening this freeway?
I agree with others have said, highways are better for certain situations and sometimes transit is better.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
They oppose the I-5 widening because of "induced demand" (since we all know that's an actual thing that happens)....
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.
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 18, 2012, 11:04:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
They oppose the I-5 widening because of "induced demand" (since we all know that's an actual thing that happens)....
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.
I will admit that while I recall reading that there have been some, I could not tell you what their names were or can say that I have actually read them.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on December 18, 2012, 09:41:36 PM
This list is correct on California. Here we can spend Billions on freeway widenings that absolutely do nothing to alleviate traffic but can barely muster enough for a Westside subway to UCLA that will certainly move hundreds of thousands of people better than Wilshire Bl does now. The buses on Wilshire alone already move close to a half of the people on the corridor. The $1 Billion spent on the I-405 Sepulveda Pass carpool lane would have been better spent on a rail tunnel directly connecting the valley to the Westside.
I am
deeply skeptical of the so-called Subway to the Sea being able to do any of the things that it has promised. Why? Because the land use does not really support an investment in a heavy rail line, and buses can move an enormous number of people at
much lower capital cost. Specific examples include the Contraflow bus lane heading to the Lincoln Tunnel in North Jersey, the I-395 HOV lanes in Northern Virginia, and, of course, Curitiba, Brazil's bus rapid transit.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on December 18, 2012, 09:41:36 PM
I talked with an Engineer who's working the CA-91 widening project in riverside. It would take 22 lane wide freeways to keep up with demand less than a decade from now. CA-91 would only be half that size after the widening project . What is the point of widening this freeway?
I agree with others have said, highways are better for certain situations and sometimes transit is better.
I am not aware of
any freeway corridors in the United States that are more than 14 lanes wide, and those are
rare.
I-270 in Montgomery County, Maryland is 12 lanes at its widest.
I think the New Jersey Turnpike at its widest is 14 lanes (those that drive the Pike more than I, please correct me if I am wrong).
How wide is Highway 401 in Toronto, Ontario these days? 14 lanes maybe? (I have not been there in quite a few years)
The key is
not to build freeways as wide as 22 lanes, but to build a
network of them - and correctly
price them to assure free flow at all times, except if there is a crash. That's the idea behind the Ca. 91 express lanes in Orange County, and those lanes
work. That's also the concept that allowed the I-495 HOV/toll lanes in Fairfax County, Va. and the Md. 200 (ICC) toll road in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties to be built.
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 18, 2012, 11:04:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
They oppose the I-5 widening because of "induced demand" (since we all know that's an actual thing that happens)....
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.
From what I read, people tend to state that when roads are built or widened, it increases residental and commercial development in the area, creating congestion.
There are several issues I have with that alone, including this generality: If a road needs to be widened, then most likely it's already congested, which shows that those developments was built regardless of the highway's width.
These studies only tend to look at the road that was widened as well. I'll use one example near me: NJ 42 was widened from 3 to 4 lanes in 1999. People at that time complained that it'll back up anyway during the rush hours because more people are driving it. BUT...no one mentioned that daily congestion was reduced from 7 miles every day to 1 or 2 miles on that roadway. No one mentioned congestion was reduced/eliminated on the more local, reasonably parallel roadways, such as NJ 47 & NJ 168. And no one mentioned that the congestion was virtually eliminated during other times of the day on the highway.
By focusing on a limited portion of the entire region, an organization can falsely claim that the highway induced demand.
Let me try to shed some light on the induced traffic issue.
First, induced traffic exists generally. However, it is not generally true that it is a large proportion of the traffic using a road, or that it will eliminate the journey time savings from making a given highway improvement. In order for either to be true, there has to be high elasticity of traffic demand with regard to supply, which tends to happen only in urban areas, certain densely settled rural areas, and in areas with either longstanding or deep shortfalls in highway investment compared to per capita car ownership.
Second, the purpose of invoking induced traffic as a propaganda tool is generally to undermine the economic case for a proposed highway improvement by making it intuitively unclear. We make a capital investment in a highway improvement because we expect a net social surplus from it: in other words, we expect the time stream of consumption gained to be greater than the time stream of consumption foregone. (Social surplus is a generalization of the concept of profit; it is effectively the "profit" society makes from an investment.) Social surplus has many components. One part that is obvious to the general public is cumulative journey time savings over existing routes. Another is savings from reduced accident losses. But if induced traffic is large enough that the net effect of a highway improvement is not to reduce journey times, but rather to increase the number of people who are able to undertake the journey, what is the contribution to social surplus? There is one, and it can be calculated, but the method is not obvious, so the result does little to persuade lay observers that the investment is worth making.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 19, 2012, 08:48:25 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on December 18, 2012, 09:41:36 PM
This list is correct on California. Here we can spend Billions on freeway widenings that absolutely do nothing to alleviate traffic but can barely muster enough for a Westside subway to UCLA that will certainly move hundreds of thousands of people better than Wilshire Bl does now. The buses on Wilshire alone already move close to a half of the people on the corridor. The $1 Billion spent on the I-405 Sepulveda Pass carpool lane would have been better spent on a rail tunnel directly connecting the valley to the Westside.
I am deeply skeptical of the so-called Subway to the Sea being able to do any of the things that it has promised. Why? Because the land use does not really support an investment in a heavy rail line, and buses can move an enormous number of people at much lower capital cost. Specific examples include the Contraflow bus lane heading to the Lincoln Tunnel in North Jersey, the I-395 HOV lanes in Northern Virginia, and, of course, Curitiba, Brazil's bus rapid transit.
I have to respectfully disagree and tell you that you have no clue what you are talking about. The only proposed station that did not have density to justify its cost was the Wilshire/Crenshaw station, which was dropped from the extension. However, the rest of the line hits the densest parts of the city. The Rapid 720 is already crush loaded round the clock with no dedicated bus lanes. The rapid comes every 2 minutes at peak-rush with 0 chance of finding a seat, all that with round the clock 60 foot articulated buses. This is not even counting the local buses on the corridor. Ride the buses first before you start telling me how great the buses are.
A fully grade separated rail line would make the trip in less than half the time of the buses, even beating cars. It's been proven that people are more willing to ride rail than buses. If the buses are already getting that kind of ridership, imagine amount of choice riders who will use the subway.
EDIT: Here's a video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wge79ln6peE
QuoteQuote from: Riverside Frwy on December 18, 2012, 09:41:36 PM
I talked with an Engineer who's working the CA-91 widening project in riverside. It would take 22 lane wide freeways to keep up with demand less than a decade from now. CA-91 would only be half that size after the widening project . What is the point of widening this freeway?
I agree with others have said, highways are better for certain situations and sometimes transit is better.
I am not aware of any freeway corridors in the United States that are more than 14 lanes wide, and those are rare.
I-270 in Montgomery County, Maryland is 12 lanes at its widest.
I think the New Jersey Turnpike at its widest is 14 lanes (those that drive the Pike more than I, please correct me if I am wrong).
How wide is Highway 401 in Toronto, Ontario these days? 14 lanes maybe? (I have not been there in quite a few years)
The key is not to build freeways as wide as 22 lanes, but to build a network of them - and correctly price them to assure free flow at all times, except if there is a crash. That's the idea behind the Ca. 91 express lanes in Orange County, and those lanes work. That's also the concept that allowed the I-495 HOV/toll lanes in Fairfax County, Va. and the Md. 200 (ICC) toll road in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties to be built.
I agree that a network of freeways, like Madrid, Spain, is the way to go, but news flash, there aren't going to be anymore freeways built. The money would be much better spent on more OC-RIV express bus service and triple or quad-tracking Metrolink Commuter trains to allow more trains to go through without being delayed by freight trains.
Lawyers, Engineers, and Doctors ride metrolink if it gets them to work. I know 20 or so engineers at caltrans, including supervisors, who take express buses and Metrolink to work. I've met two lawyers and one dentist on Metrolink. Increase service and the market of choice riders would be huge.
Quote from: InterstateNG on December 18, 2012, 08:32:11 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2012, 03:03:47 PMFor a long time, I thought NE2 was Randy Hersh.
Really? The vast difference in writing style didn't mean anything to you?
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 19, 2012, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2012, 03:03:47 PMFor 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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2012, 09:30:53 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 18, 2012, 11:04:43 PM
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.
But... but... peer-reviewed journals claim global warming is true! And that's an obvious commie lie!
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2012, 09:13:13 PMI 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.
QuoteHis 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 20, 2012, 12:12:20 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2012, 09:13:13 PMI 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").
QuoteI 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.
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).
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2012, 02:07:44 AM
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.
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 19, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2012, 09:30:53 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 18, 2012, 11:04:43 PM
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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/traffic4.htm)
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.
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 20, 2012, 12:12:20 AM
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!
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 20, 2012, 12:12:20 AM
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.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 20, 2012, 06:50:35 PM
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 20, 2012, 12:12:20 AM
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. :-D 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 20, 2012, 12:12:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2012, 02:07:44 AM
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!!!!!!
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2012, 02:07:44 AM
QuoteI 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 :bigass: but I'm sure Randy probably would have approved of it. ;-)
Quote from: hbelkins on December 20, 2012, 09:07:19 PM. . . 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 21, 2012, 11:10:03 AM
(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!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 21, 2012, 11:10:03 AM
(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
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
correct. all hail the Colt of the Orange Bronco!
FTFY (not).
Sounds like the biggest pain-in-the-@$$ of all NIMBYs, if you know what I mean! They seem to never want any new roads built anywhere, yet they're all for public transit.
Quote from: Henry on December 22, 2012, 02:19:40 PM
Sounds like the biggest pain-in-the-@$$ 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
Quote from: Big John on December 22, 2012, 02:36:28 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 22, 2012, 02:19:40 PM
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 21, 2012, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 20, 2012, 09:07:19 PM. . . 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.
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 19, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
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?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2012, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 19, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
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.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2012, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 19, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
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. :pan:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2012, 05:51:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2012, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 19, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
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.
Quote from: deanej on December 22, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 21, 2012, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 20, 2012, 09:07:19 PM. . . 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.
Why, exactly? And was this done since June? I definitely saw Fictional before I joined.
I believe this was done around the June-August timeframe.
It was done because we'd like new members to join because they initially want to contribute to all the other boards that aren't those two (i.e. we don't want to attract new users who intend to post only in the fictional or transit boards).
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on December 19, 2012, 02:17:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 19, 2012, 08:48:25 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on December 18, 2012, 09:41:36 PM
This list is correct on California. Here we can spend Billions on freeway widenings that absolutely do nothing to alleviate traffic but can barely muster enough for a Westside subway to UCLA that will certainly move hundreds of thousands of people better than Wilshire Bl does now. The buses on Wilshire alone already move close to a half of the people on the corridor. The $1 Billion spent on the I-405 Sepulveda Pass carpool lane would have been better spent on a rail tunnel directly connecting the valley to the Westside.
I am deeply skeptical of the so-called Subway to the Sea being able to do any of the things that it has promised. Why? Because the land use does not really support an investment in a heavy rail line, and buses can move an enormous number of people at much lower capital cost. Specific examples include the Contraflow bus lane heading to the Lincoln Tunnel in North Jersey, the I-395 HOV lanes in Northern Virginia, and, of course, Curitiba, Brazil's bus rapid transit.
I have to respectfully disagree and tell you that you have no clue what you are talking about. The only proposed station that did not have density to justify its cost was the Wilshire/Crenshaw station, which was dropped from the extension. However, the rest of the line hits the densest parts of the city. The Rapid 720 is already crush loaded round the clock with no dedicated bus lanes. The rapid comes every 2 minutes at peak-rush with 0 chance of finding a seat, all that with round the clock 60 foot articulated buses. This is not even counting the local buses on the corridor. Ride the buses first before you start telling me how great the buses are.
A fully grade separated rail line would make the trip in less than half the time of the buses, even beating cars. It's been proven that people are more willing to ride rail than buses. If the buses are already getting that kind of ridership, imagine amount of choice riders who will use the subway.
EDIT: Here's a video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wge79ln6peE
I inadvertently deleted a response to the above, and am only now going to try it again.First. why is service to 2 minute headways? During times of day when the demand is there, LAMTA should be able to run
1 minute headways to serve that demand. Even
doubling the number of buses running the Wilshire Boulevard corridor should be less expensive than building new rail lines.
Then there is the matter of employment density.
Are the job densities high enough to support such an expensive rail project?