AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program  (Read 50435 times)

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2809
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:04:28 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #375 on: October 01, 2021, 11:32:43 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.
I thought the argument really became in the limelight during the 90s but I gotta disagree with you here that it doesn’t 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.
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14910
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 10:09:42 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #376 on: October 01, 2021, 11:37:50 PM »

TIL the Wilson Bridge only has 2 lanes each way inside.

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2082
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 07:52:07 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #377 on: October 02, 2021, 08:05:38 AM »

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.
I thought the argument really became in the limelight during the 90s but I gotta disagree with you here that it doesn’t 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.

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

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13221
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 09:28:24 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #378 on: October 02, 2021, 11:58:33 AM »

I found something interesting.

In 2001, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge carried 200,000 vehicles per day

They then widened it from 6 lanes to 12

In 2019, traffic was just under 250,000.

So a 100% increase in capacity was followed by just a 25% increase in traffic.

That's a factoid that should be brought up every time some mouth breather claims widening the AL bridge won't reduce congestion.

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.

Usually though, they don't look at (or ignore) other times of day, especially midday traffic, after sporting events, etc, where traffic may have formerly congested but is now flowing freely. They will also ignore that traffic on other roads that were used to bypass congestion are now using the widened roadway, which would help reduce congestion in other areas of the region.

There's also additional factors at play here:

The highway, on either side of the bridge, is still four lanes wide. Even though there's interchanges within the widened roadway, the main highway is still going to be a limiting factor where there's only four lanes leading to the bridge. This also plays into why they didn't stripe the bridge to six lanes in each direction.

Also, people traveling through the area, not familiar with the area, may be inclined to use GPS, which wasn't as common prior to the bridge widening. The GPS routing often will take people on 295, or 495 west of DC, which may smooth traffic out over the entire region, especially during busy travel times.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2082
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 07:52:07 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #379 on: October 02, 2021, 01:06:24 PM »

My sister lives in Bethesda and just started a job in Tysons. Right now it's remote, but if she gets called into the office, she'll be using this bridge and she, like hundreds of thousands of others, will benefit from it being widened. So I've taken the step of submitting a public comment to the Maryland DOT in favor.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2809
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:04:28 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #380 on: October 02, 2021, 05:03:49 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.
I thought the argument really became in the limelight during the 90s but I gotta disagree with you here that it doesn’t 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.

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

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11120
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: March 29, 2022, 02:14:14 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #381 on: October 02, 2021, 07:49:33 PM »

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.

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.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2021, 07:54:26 PM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2809
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:04:28 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #382 on: November 19, 2021, 12:44:23 PM »

Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2082
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 07:52:07 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #383 on: November 20, 2021, 09:08:25 AM »

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 — covering just segments of the Beltway and I-270 — wouldn’t do much for evening rush-hour traffic by 2045. Opponents seized on the report as proof the plan isn’t worth it. In fact, it should serve as a warning: Without a more farsighted project that would add capacity to Maryland’s full length of the Beltway and I-270 to Frederick, everyone will suffer.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14176
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 10:48:42 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #384 on: November 20, 2021, 09:09:42 AM »

Why does that surprise you?
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2082
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 07:52:07 PM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #385 on: November 20, 2021, 09:11:30 AM »

Why does that surprise you?
Because the Washington Post is supposed to be the paper of the chattering classes and the chattering classes hate cars.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9883
  • Last Login: Today at 09:15:47 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #386 on: November 20, 2021, 09:41:09 AM »

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 — covering just segments of the Beltway and I-270 — wouldn’t do much for evening rush-hour traffic by 2045. Opponents seized on the report as proof the plan isn’t worth it. In fact, it should serve as a warning: Without a more farsighted project that would add capacity to Maryland’s full length of the Beltway and I-270 to Frederick, everyone will suffer.
I don't see this as an attack, but just reporting on the opposition's stance.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2809
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:04:28 AM
Re: I-495 and I-270 P3 Program
« Reply #387 on: February 22, 2022, 06:26:35 PM »

Another setback: https://wtop.com/maryland/2022/02/montgomery-county-judge-rules-against-mdot-in-toll-lanes-lawsuit/

It seems all the ruling says is to simply reconsider the contract and move on?
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.