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

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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.

So I have a hard time taking anything the Sierra Club does or says seriously.

[Brandon]

as though Jesus Christ himself shits out a bus every morning.

* kphoger eagerly waits for NE2 to post a picture.....

LOL!    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.

[NE2]

I grew out of my roads=good phase. The Power Broker helped.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[NE2]

yawn

[realjd]

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.

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?

[Revive 755]

Nothing on the list for Missouri?  I'm surprised Phase 3 of the Page Avenue (MO 364) extension didn't make the list.

[NE2]

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.

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.

[Grzrd]

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 thread)

I-269 is included in the report as a "STOP" project:

... 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 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.

[Brandon]

yawn

How mature.

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.

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*.

[mcdonaat]

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.

[NE2]

explain the large SUVs they drive to their meetings instead of using smaller cars or transit?

More talking points. Yawn.

[kphoger]

... Dan ... Dan ... Dan ...

I'm imagining you pointing your finger at a cowering dog.  Hopefully not what you were going for....

[InterstateNG]

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?).

[kphoger]

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.

[Takumi]

...but his name has been posted on the front page of Steve's website for years.

[Brandon]

...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.

explain the large SUVs they drive to their meetings instead of using smaller cars or transit?

More talking points. Yawn.

I expected as much.

[Riverside Frwy]

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.

[Ned Weasel]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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 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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

[Riverside Frwy]

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 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.