News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Eisenhower Transportation Legacy Program (IKE)

Started by J N Winkler, January 17, 2020, 02:51:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ned Weasel

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 06:44:50 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 28, 2020, 06:38:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 06:33:00 PM
No you are right induced demand is here to doom us all so let's just toll everything because free lanes will fill right up.

What a crock of shit this assumption is. Oklahoma widened I-40 years ago and it still hasn't filled up. The truth is latent demand is the real player at work and the department doesn't want to admit it. No distinction could possibly be made of how many new trips occurred because a third lane was added even though that would be the first thought if it did fill up. Don't mislead the public. If the freeway needs ten lanes then do it. If you don't have the money then say so. Don't try and spoon feed people the induced demand bullshit because that's exactly what it is, bullshit.

Yeah, you tell 'em!

Funny how the induced demand doubters thought Houston "built its way out of congestion" years ago, and now we're finding out it actually didn't.
From my experience the Katy freeway flows fine where it was widened, it is the bottleneck that causes it to back up. Dallas has better flowing traffic than Portland, OR. That's saying something.

But hey way to dodge my points with a "yeah you tell em"  response. It's cute.

You're dodging several points.  (1) Induced demand is well researched science.  Denying it is no less dishonest than any claim a political figure might make in favor of or against building or expanding a roadway.  No, it's not a hard science like physics and chemistry, where you can predict every outcome precisely; it's a social science, where predictions can be made with a certain degree of reliability but not 100%.  (2) Driving is a privilege, not a right, and nobody has a right to free-flowing traffic.  It's unrealistic and damaging to expect roads to be expanded ad infinitum.  At some point it's best to tell people no.

Now back to my original point--

You would be correct to say that the best way to handle traffic on the US 69 Freeway in Overland Park, Kansas is a matter of debate.  There are several options including but not limited to: (1) add X number of lanes without putting tolls on any of them, (2) add toll lanes with demand-based pricing, (3) convert the whole freeway to a tollway and provide an alternate US Highway route as required by my understanding of US Highway designation requirements, (4) add ramp meters to help reduce mainline congestion, at least before doing anything else, and (5) do nothing (the "no build" option).  Frankly, I'm not sure which is the best option, and it probably requires further study before jumping to conclusions.  All we know is the City of Overland Park wants a widening but KDOT hasn't made it a priority, congestion currently exists on the freeway, and the phenomenon of induced demand exists in general.  I don't think it would impossible for Overland Park to impose a sales tax increase to pay for it, because that's how Wichita built the Kellogg Freeway (two concurrently routed US Highways).

However, you would be incorrect to jump to the conclusion that induced demand is "bullshit" or that "building your way out of congestion" is a generally reliable solution.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.


Scott5114

If induced demand is a thing, why doesn't Oklahoma City experience noticeable amounts of congestion?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 09, 2020, 05:22:32 AM
If induced demand is a thing, why doesn't Oklahoma City experience noticeable amounts of congestion?
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.

Ned Weasel

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.

Would you care to cite your sources?
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: stridentweasel on June 09, 2020, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.

Would you care to cite your sources?
You already have in the past. Look at your own sources. They fall in line with exactly what I just said. The same typical traffic congested cities are always used and the ones like OKC that still widen their freeways left and right never are.

Just like SLC that is building new lanes and freeways like crazy and growing like mad saw a reduction in travel times. Weird. Also weird how Portland rivals DFW traffic is a quarter of its size.

Ned Weasel

#30
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 07:50:38 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 09, 2020, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.

Would you care to cite your sources?
You already have in the past. Look at your own sources. They fall in line with exactly what I just said. The same typical traffic congested cities are always used and the ones like OKC that still widen their freeways left and right never are.

Just like SLC that is building new lanes and freeways like crazy and growing like mad saw a reduction in travel times. Weird. Also weird how Portland rivals DFW traffic is a quarter of its size.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
...projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.

Can you show me a single example of a project that only added one lane in each direction when it needed three or more in each direction?  And if so, how can you determine that it needed three or more in each direction?  What data do you have to support this claim?  What math shows that the amount of lanes needed was at least three times the amount of lanes actually added?

Do you really expect anyone who's paying attention to believe your claim that induced demand--supported by decades of research--is, in your word, bullshit, when your own half-assed retorts are full of flimsy claims?

Edit: I corrected a brain fart that I made when I was tired last night.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

Plutonic Panda

It's becoming very obvious you are trolling now. Looking back I should have gathered that earlier.

Plutonic Panda

Strident, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll respond to you one last time. I honestly could go through, dig up numbers on a number of freeway widening projects that occurred in major cities with horrid congestion, gather traffic numbers, cross reference those with a variety of state DOT guidelines for warranted widening after ADT crosses a certain threshold, and present that. To be quite honest, if I were writing a research paper to publish or for a school I probably would. I'm on a talk forum and I could give not two shits whether you change your mind or not. So you look it up yourself.

PS, just remember, if you do go through the trouble to gather those numbers, remember to account for latent and induced demand. See when I say induced demand is bullshit, I mean it's bullshit to be used against freeway construction because there is no distinction made between it and latent demand, no real number for exactly how many cars account for induced demand, and always pathetic excuses made for cities that widen freeways to see the new lanes provide sufficient LOS for years.

As I said, I don't care to change you mind here. I'm not citing anything for you. I don't feel like going through the effort even it takes less time than me making this post. That said one day I do plan to do an in depth analysis of all of this and likely it will be for a school project so when that day comes I'll make a thread here just for you. :)

Ned Weasel

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 10, 2020, 06:06:45 AM
That said one day I do plan to do an in depth analysis of all of this and likely it will be for a school project so when that day comes I'll make a thread here just for you. :)

Good.  I look forward to reading it.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

kphoger

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 07:50:38 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on June 09, 2020, 06:04:26 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.

Would you care to cite your sources?

You already have in the past. Look at your own sources. They fall in line with exactly what I just said. The same typical traffic congested cities are always used and the ones like OKC that still widen their freeways left and right never are.

Just like SLC that is building new lanes and freeways like crazy and growing like mad saw a reduction in travel times. Weird. Also weird how Portland rivals DFW traffic is a quarter of its size.

The supposed existence of induced demand does not necessitate that every widening project will result in the same level of congestion as before the project.  It's possible that induced demand didn't happen at some projects but did happen at other projects.  It's possible that, even if travel times were reduced, demand still went up–just not up far enough to match pre-project travel times.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Scott5114

Quote from: stridentweasel on June 09, 2020, 06:04:26 PM
Would you care to cite your sources?

Oklahoma City widened most of its freeways in the 1990s and 2000s. Induced demand would say that the roads would have returned to a comparable LOS as before the expansion by now. But they haven't.

Two things that the theory of induced demand fails to account for:
-Traffic on roads other than the target road. Any road is part of a system. Most American cities have a grid of streets that any given corridor will run parallel to. If traffic rises on a target corridor, it may fall on adjacent corridors as people shift usage to the improved corridor. While freeway expansion may not help traffic on the freeway, it helps remove cars from local streets not designed for thru traffic, which is still a net benefit. This demand is latent rather than induced.
-Freeway usage can be expected to rise as a function of a region's population. City growth is driven by other factors besides transportation access. If  KDOT widens I-35, then I get a sweet job in KCMO and move to Overland Park and start commuting to it, did KDOT really "induce" my demand?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Ned Weasel

#36
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 10, 2020, 04:31:59 PM
-Freeway usage can be expected to rise as a function of a region's population. City growth is driven by other factors besides transportation access. If  KDOT widens I-35, then I get a sweet job in KCMO and move to Overland Park and start commuting to it, did KDOT really "induce" my demand?

Wouldn't that depend on what influenced your decision to live in Overland Park (and which part of Overland Park), as opposed to other municipalities in the KC metropolitan area?

(Also, if you're living in Overland Park and commuting north, the US 69 freeway is also likely going to be a matter of concern.)

(I also wonder how many people commute from Overland Park to KCMO, compared to the number of people who commute from Lee's Summit to Overland Park.  If you look at rush hour on the 435, it's heavy from Lee's Summit to OP in the morning, and heavy the other way in the evening.  But yes, commuting from OP and Olathe north to KCMO is still a very major part of the area's commuting patterns.)
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

rte66man

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 10, 2020, 04:31:59 PM
Oklahoma City widened most of its freeways in the 1990s and 2000s.

Uhh, not "most".  Broadway Extension was widened from 63rd north to Memorial in the late 90's. I35 from OKC to Norman was widened from 4 to 6 lanes over the period of nearly 20 years. I240 was widened from the airport to Crossroads. That's it.  I don't count the I40 Crosstown as a widening as it was on a new alignment and left the terrible Amarillo junction untouched.I-35 from the Fort Smith junction north to I44 is still in it's 1960's configuration an hasn't been widened north from there since the 70's.  I44 is the same as it has been since the 1970's. So is I40 east from downtown. 
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Plutonic Panda

I disagree with the notion the Crosstown wasn't widened. To me it is still the same signed road just slightly shifted to the south but going from 3 lanes each way to 5.

rte66man

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 10, 2020, 09:29:06 PM
I disagree with the notion the Crosstown wasn't widened. To me it is still the same signed road just slightly shifted to the south but going from 3 lanes each way to 5.

Still doesn't change the point I made.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Scott5114

The point I was making was that OKC added a considerable number of freeway lane-miles in the 1990s and 2000s and has yet to experience congestion catching up with it.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

rte66man

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 15, 2020, 03:09:22 AM
The point I was making was that OKC added a considerable number of freeway lane-miles in the 1990s and 2000s and has yet to experience congestion catching up with it.

Yet they still haven't done anything with Dead Man's Curve (I44/OK74/OK66). I think I remember a thread on another board where they listed 2-digit interstates that were reduced to one lane at a major junction. I44 is one lane in BOTH directions here. Traffic backs up terribly in both directions during the evening rush hour. Designed and built in the 70's, you would have thought they knew better.  What a cluster
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Bobby5280

The interchange with I-44, OK-66 & OK-74 really needs to be re-built as a 4-level directional stack interchange, with at least 2 lanes on both EB & WB I-44 ramps. No cloverleaf ramps. That would solve most of the problems right there. Hefner Parkway (OK-74) has enough existing ROW to add another lane in each direction. I think OK-66 ought to be elevated over that first stoplight just West of the interchange and maybe even elevated over the Portland Ave intersection for good measure. Unfortunately this entire concept would probably cost well over $300 million to build.

In the meantime we're just getting some piece-meal, duct tape "fixes" to that interchange.

Ned Weasel

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
The interchange with I-44, OK-66 & OK-74 really needs to be re-built as a 4-level directional stack interchange, with at least 2 lanes on both EB & WB I-44 ramps. No cloverleaf ramps. That would solve most of the problems right there. Hefner Parkway (OK-74) has enough existing ROW to add another lane in each direction. I think OK-66 ought to be elevated over that first stoplight just West of the interchange and maybe even elevated over the Portland Ave intersection for good measure. Unfortunately this entire concept would probably cost well over $300 million to build.

That sounds like overkill.  You could probably just add a lane to I-44 in each direction where it only has one, and then taper it after each direction's merge.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

Bobby5280

It's not overkill at all. I've driven through that interchange many times over the past 30 years. The current design is TERRIBLE. All ODOT can do with it is make very minor upgrades that do little to solve the traffic snarl issues. It's going to take more than just patching on an extra lane. The ramp geometry sucks. That's another reason for the back-ups. And then there's the two traffic signals on OK-66 immediately to the West of the interchange. That crap causes even more problems, hence my suggestion to create a short elevated freeway section so traffic that's hung up at the stop lights doesn't back up into the damned interchange.

sprjus4

The induced demand fallacy again  :rolleyes:

In Hampton Roads, numerous of projects were completed in the 1990s and early 2000s.

I-64 was widened to 8 lanes between I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 and I-264 in the 1990s.
I-64 was widened to 8 lanes between I-664 and Jefferson Ave on the Peninsula in the early 2000s.
I-264 was widened to 8 lanes between Downtown Norfolk and First Colonial Road in the 1990s and early 2000s, with the exception of the I-264 / I-64 and I-464 / I-264 / Downtown Tunnel interchanges.

Rarely any congestion on those segments on the freeway mainlines themselves, even during peak hours.

The remaining 4 lane interstate segments in the area with similar or less traffic volumes? Heavy congestion.

Before 2017, I-64 was a bottleneck from Newport News to Richmond. It went from 8 lanes to 6 lanes to 4 lanes north of Jefferson Ave. Over the past few years, it has been widened to 6 lanes from Jefferson Ave to Williamsburg, and traffic now flows 65+ mph easily, even during peak hours. The remainder to Richmond is currently being completed in phases, and as each phase opens, traffic gets considerable better, especially during peak holidays.

Traffic grows over years on any facilities. Does widening trigger "induced demand" or is it simply more traffic / growth that was inevitably going to happen anyways and make un-widened facilities even worse? Essentially, a 4 lane freeway was widened to 6 lanes, traffic got better, then over years grew again. What if that facility was still 4 lanes, not 6? The traffic was still going to grow, it just has more capacity to handle higher volumes before congesting. Is there a point where HO/T lanes can become beneficial when a highway is built out to 6 or 8 general purpose lanes and there's little room for expansion? Maybe... but that should not be the only solution as many organizations like to look at it, including Hampton Roads who is now turning to HO/T lanes to widen the remaining 4 lane freeways in the area and not considering GP lanes. They claim in studies done that HO/T lanes would be better for traffic flow in the long-term, but I seriously question those results. How come the general purpose lanes added on facilities mentioned above aren't bottlenecked?

Ned Weasel

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2020, 05:45:54 PM
The induced demand fallacy again  :rolleyes:

Why do you think induced demand is a "fallacy?"  Can you cite a specific part of the research that makes an incorrect conclusion?

Quote
Traffic grows over years on any facilities. Does widening trigger "induced demand" or is it simply more traffic / growth that was inevitably going to happen anyways and make un-widened facilities even worse? Essentially, a 4 lane freeway was widened to 6 lanes, traffic got better, then over years grew again. What if that facility was still 4 lanes, not 6? The traffic was still going to grow, it just has more capacity to handle higher volumes before congesting.

I think you're missing the point that traffic is its own limiting factor.  When a roadway or road network reaches a high level of congestion, people begin to look to alternatives instead of driving on it, because they realize the increased travel times from congestion make the trip less worthwhile.

There's an old joke that speaks to the truth in this: "Nobody drives in Manhattan because there's too much traffic."  In many senses, it's true.  If I was driving from New Jersey to Long Island, I'd much rather go through Staten Island, despite the increased distance.  If I was driving to Connecticut, I'd much rather take the Tappan Zee Bridge than the George Washington Bridge.  If I was going to Manhattan, I'd much rather park my car somewhere in New Jersey and take a train.

And I realize that the theory of induced demand isn't a model that predicts every situation with 100% numerical certainty.  There are many variables that influence differing results.  It's generalizable as a phenomenon that occurs repeatedly, but it's not predictable enough to say that adding X number of lanes will result in Y increase in traffic over Z amount of time.  That's one of the main differences between social sciences and physical sciences; social sciences describe trends that occur with degrees of variability, while physical sciences describe phenomena that can be predicted with high levels of precision in every case until new evidence disproves an old theory, which has been known to happen with biological science but hasn't yet happened with gravity.

The theory of induced demand is based in the work of social science.  Traffic engineering depends very much on social science, because it involves modeling human behavior.  That's why it's a fallacy (and something that has been proven false) to say "traffic flows like water."  The difference is obvious.  Traffic flows like what it is: humans with central nervous systems making informed decisions about travel behavior.  Water flows like what it is: molecules lacking central nervous systems and unable to do anything but follow the laws of physics.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

mvak36

They're going to have a public meeting tomorrow about the US69 toll lanes.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/development/article248605555.html
Quote
Johnson County residents will have an opportunity Wednesday evening to ask questions and learn more about a plan to expand U.S. 69 in Overland Park – possibly with new toll lanes.

Officials with the Kansas Department of Transportation and Overland Park are studying the feasibility of widening U.S. 69 to six lanes from 103rd to 179th streets. Both of those new lanes in each direction could be turned into "express toll lanes"  to help fund the cost of the project, which is estimated to be $300 million for the initial work.

KDOT will host its first public meeting about the project, virtually, from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Wednesday. The meeting may be accessed on that day through a link posted on the project website, 69express.org. Project leaders will give a presentation and then allow residents a chance to submit questions.

For those who cannot attend the meeting, project information will be available at the same website through Jan. 31. Residents can also leave feedback on the website.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

Plutonic Panda

Requiring a toll lane to expand a road to six lanes... what a great legacy for Eisenhower's Interstate system. I really hope this is voted down.

Sani

From the project plans, it looks like the express toll lanes project would widen 69 to four lanes in each direction, with the inside lane being the toll lane, at least north of 151st Street. I wonder if that would be a problem for toll revenues, since at least three lanes in each direction north of 151st, along with the improvements from College to 103rd (including the NB 69 --> WB 435 flyover ramp, sorely needed), would really take care of the vast majority of the problem. Why pay for a KTag to go in the far left lane when the free #2 lane is moving just as smoothly?



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.