We're told that "we can't pave our way out of congestion" because people will just drive more and leave the roads just as clogged as before. But as this chart shows, that's false
(https://i.imgur.com/2U05uIp.png)
We see that, nationally, the growth in driving far exceeds the growth in lane miles. And, the great slowdown in driving growth after 2007 happened to coincide with a period of increased roadbuilding.
And the idea never made a lick of sense. The road outside my house is empty most of the time, people don't drive down it just because it's there. And there are plenty of examples of new freeways removing traffic from surface arterials. And here in Boston, the Big Dig objectively has improved traffic, with the old Central Artery's mid day bumper to bumper traffic jams being cast to the ashbin of history.
Think of it like this. If a power company is experiencing rolling blackouts, do they just throw their hands up in the air and say "If we build more powerplants and transmission lines, people will just use more electricity. It's hopeless!" No, they keep adding capacity as long as revenue covers the cost of expansion. Obviously, in many places, it would be prohibitively expensive, both in monetary and social terms, to pave our way out of congestion, but to claim we shouldn't widen our roads because it would just bring more traffic defies all reason, and is just the latest lie the anti-car crowd has rolled out as part of their nefarious anti-mobility agenda.
I actually agree that induced demand isn't really a thing. Look at the southern half of I-495 (MA), which hasn't grown that much (the northern half connected large cities even before I-495 was there), and the northern suburbs of Atlanta, which have had huge growth despite the lack of an outer beltway.
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Quote from: 1 on March 19, 2021, 07:37:11 AM
I actually agree that induced demand isn't really a thing. Look at the southern half of I-495 (MA), which hasn't grown that much (the northern half connected large cities even before I-495 was there), and the northern suburbs of Atlanta, which have had huge growth despite the lack of an outer beltway.
Highways are the only thing that are judged a failure when people use them. The guys at Streetsblog think empty streetcars are a better investment than bumper to bumper freeways.
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
I made that point already
QuoteObviously, in many places, it would be prohibitively expensive, both in monetary and social terms
Also, each additional lane adds less to traffic capacity than the one before it, due to increased numbers of lane changes. So, if you have a 14 lane freeway, its best to split it up into local and express lanes, a la New Jersey Turnpike
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
I'm also in favor of alternate route surface roads. For example, I-93 has MA 28 and MA 38, but the I-95 portion of MA 128 doesn't have any good alternates. Alternates don't have to parallel the freeway – if MA 114 (a diagonal) between I-495 and I-95 wasn't a straight line with no turns and a 45 mph speed limit (that's high for eastern Massachusetts), I-93 and I-95 would be more congested.
Quote from: 1 on March 19, 2021, 07:54:44 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
I'm also in favor of alternate route surface roads. For example, I-93 has MA 28 and MA 38, but the I-95 portion of MA 128 doesn't have any good alternates. Alternates don't have to parallel the freeway – if MA 114 (a diagonal) between I-495 and I-95 wasn't a straight line with no turns and a 45 mph speed limit (that's high for eastern Massachusetts), I-93 and I-95 would be more congested.
Congestion on the I-95 portion of 128 is largely due to the antiquated cloverleaf interchanges, most infamously at I-93.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 19, 2021, 07:54:44 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
I'm also in favor of alternate route surface roads. For example, I-93 has MA 28 and MA 38, but the I-95 portion of MA 128 doesn't have any good alternates. Alternates don't have to parallel the freeway – if MA 114 (a diagonal) between I-495 and I-95 wasn't a straight line with no turns and a 45 mph speed limit (that's high for eastern Massachusetts), I-93 and I-95 would be more congested.
Congestion on the I-95 portion of 128 is largely due to the antiquated cloverleaf interchanges, most infamously at I-93.
I think the congestion on I-95 at I-93 (I assume you're talking about the northern one in Reading), at least northbound, is actually because of the lane drop at MA 28 one exit later.
Quote from: 1 on March 19, 2021, 08:00:27 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 19, 2021, 07:54:44 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
I'm also in favor of alternate route surface roads. For example, I-93 has MA 28 and MA 38, but the I-95 portion of MA 128 doesn't have any good alternates. Alternates don't have to parallel the freeway – if MA 114 (a diagonal) between I-495 and I-95 wasn't a straight line with no turns and a 45 mph speed limit (that's high for eastern Massachusetts), I-93 and I-95 would be more congested.
Congestion on the I-95 portion of 128 is largely due to the antiquated cloverleaf interchanges, most infamously at I-93.
I think the congestion on I-95 at I-93 (I assume you're talking about the northern one in Reading), at least northbound, is actually because of the lane drop at MA 28 one exit later.
It's not. It's because of weaving. I've used that cloverleaf enough times to know that.
Also, the town of Willits, California recently had a freeway bypass built to remove through traffic from Main Street. The induced demand theory would state that people would start clogging up the empty main street due to the added capacity, but local business owners say no, they, like almost all business owners in places that have been bypassed (radiator springs anyone), that the new freeway has reduced their traffic. (https://www.willitsnews.com/2017/11/02/willits-moving-on-after-one-year-of-freeway-bypass/)
I think "induced demand" is a lot weaker than activists make it out to be. Look at Binghamton, NY or Duluth, MN/Superior, WI, where highway improvements have not resulted in higher congestion.
I've always maintained that economic health is really the bigger factor (i.e., people coming to an area for work) and that mass transit investments are complementary to highway improvements and not supplemental.
And I think we need to define the terms carefully: induced demand vs latent demand.
Quote from: Rothman on March 19, 2021, 08:49:51 AM
I think "induced demand" is a lot weaker than activists make it out to be. Look at Binghamton, NY or Duluth, MN/Superior, WI, where highway improvements have not resulted in higher congestion.
I've always maintained that economic health is really the bigger factor (i.e., people coming to an area for work) and that mass transit investments are complementary to highway improvements and not supplemental.
I agree, it's important to remember that the areas that are getting major highway expansions are the areas that are growing quickly. Shrinking or stagnant cities don't need larger highways.
Induced demand is often an exaggerated issue, looking for the worst of the worst after a project is completed. Let's say a road is jammed from 2pm to 7pm. A lane is added, and now the delay is only from 4pm to 6pm. Anti-road people will say the construction didn't work, and the road still clogs up. True...except it's now only a 2 hour delay, not a 5 hour delay. And many times, documents prepared for the project may even point out that congestion will still occur (possibly stated as service levels), so the project results are functioning as expected.
Some roads jam up at non-peak hours as well. The lunchtime hour can be hectic. A road widening/improvement project can cure that significantly as well.
Also, traffic that was avoiding the jammed area, using back roads, residential streets, etc, may now go back to using the highway, seeing that they can use it congestion free. The anti-road people aren't going to search around for the alternative routes people were using and compare them.
There's a similar misconception in housing in the belief that new development causes home prices to rise.
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to
that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 04:12:54 PM
There's a similar misconception in housing in the belief that new development causes home prices to rise.
You hit the nail on the head, anyone with a background in Econ is familiar with this BS line of thinking. How about the one with the Tsar that discovered the providence of the empire with the most doctors also had the most sick people, so he had the doctors executed. :ded:
The real key is that this type of explanation is not supposed to be correct, it is a means to an end, namely, forcing people to ride the putrid public transit. (nice signature on the profile btw)
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Bridges cost a lot more to expand than regular freeways. If the freeway expands to 13 lanes per direction, but the bridge is still 4 per direction, that's a huge bottleneck that won't be solved by adding more lanes to the freeway.
Quote from: 1 on March 30, 2021, 01:24:52 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Bridges cost a lot more to expand than regular freeways. If the freeway expands to 13 lanes per direction, but the bridge is still 4 per direction, that's a huge bottleneck that won't be solved by adding more lanes to the freeway.
Obviously, but that means you also do the bridge. And frankly I don't buy the cost argument unless you are doing something on the scale of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, if nothing else you can employ people to build as a form of public assistance.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
But pretty much none where it would be cost effective.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:31:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 30, 2021, 01:24:52 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Bridges cost a lot more to expand than regular freeways. If the freeway expands to 13 lanes per direction, but the bridge is still 4 per direction, that's a huge bottleneck that won't be solved by adding more lanes to the freeway.
Obviously, but that means you also do the bridge. And frankly I don't buy the cost argument unless you are doing something on the scale of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, if nothing else you can employ people to build as a form of public assistance.
Most of the cost of building a highway is material and machinery, not labor.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 30, 2021, 01:53:49 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:31:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 30, 2021, 01:24:52 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Bridges cost a lot more to expand than regular freeways. If the freeway expands to 13 lanes per direction, but the bridge is still 4 per direction, that's a huge bottleneck that won't be solved by adding more lanes to the freeway.
Obviously, but that means you also do the bridge. And frankly I don't buy the cost argument unless you are doing something on the scale of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, if nothing else you can employ people to build as a form of public assistance.
Most of the cost of building a highway is material and machinery, not labor.
Labor and capital are substitutes, you can use less capital and more labor. Furthermore I would not say "most", labor is always a significant cost, just not perhaps the majority cost. But even to the extent that neither of the preceding are taken into consideration, the fact that the project provides jobs still makes it a more effective use of funds than paying people to sit on the sofa and drink beer.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Is the bolded statement actually true? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that capacity improvement diminishes with each added lane. That is to say, the improvement achieved by going from 2 to 3 lanes is greater than the improvement achieved by going from 4 to 5 lanes. If that's the case, then adding a 13th lane would have very little benefit compared to adding a 2nd lane.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 30, 2021, 01:50:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
But pretty much none where it would be cost effective.
Cost effectiveness is difficult to impossible to assess. Sure, its more "cost effective" to make people ride buses, but that is not the same level of service. To do any real comparison becomes difficult. Like it or not most of the infrastructure in this country was NOT built with an obsession over cost effectiveness, but with simpler metrics of success in mind. I would consider a dramatic reduction in the congestion on the coast to be cost effective, because nothing else is capable of providing that same result, REGARDLESS of what it costs.
Quote from: kphoger on March 30, 2021, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Is the bolded statement actually true? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that capacity improvement diminishes with each added lane. That is to say, the improvement achieved by going from 2 to 3 lanes is greater than the improvement achieved by going from 4 to 5 lanes. If that's the case, then adding a 13th lane would have very little benefit compared to adding a 2nd lane.
You are correct in that there are decreasing marginal returns, but that is not the point being made. The point is that if you have some number of lanes where you tell people to go ride the bus instead that is entirely arbitrary. Your point is addressed by my second point regarding an alternative route as being more appropriate than a 13th or 14th lane.
Also note that the above assumes a true 13 lane wide freeway, which is not a good example because few roads are built that way. The Jersey Turnpike is a good example, it has I believe 12 lanes, but segmented to function as two 6 lane roads, which means that the marginal effectiveness of the last 6 lanes built is collectively the same as the first 6 lanes built.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 30, 2021, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Is the bolded statement actually true? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that capacity improvement diminishes with each added lane. That is to say, the improvement achieved by going from 2 to 3 lanes is greater than the improvement achieved by going from 4 to 5 lanes. If that's the case, then adding a 13th lane would have very little benefit compared to adding a 2nd lane.
You are correct in that there are decreasing marginal returns, but that is not the point being made. The point is that if you have some number of lanes where you tell people to go ride the bus instead that is entirely arbitrary. Your point is addressed by my second point regarding an alternative route as being more appropriate than a 13th or 14th lane.
Also note that the above assumes a true 13 lane wide freeway, which is not a good example because few roads are built that way. The Jersey Turnpike is a good example, it has I believe 12 lanes, but segmented to function as two 6 lane roads, which means that the marginal effectiveness of the last 6 lanes built is collectively the same as the first 6 lanes built.
I think the number in the quoted post is essentially picked from thin air as a rhetorical device and is not meant to endorse that as a hard-and-fast rule. Rather, he's saying that if you find yourself adding that many lanes to a road, it may be time to step back and assess whether there might be some other fundamental problem that needs to be solved, since just adding lanes clearly isn't working.
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Quote from: kphoger on March 30, 2021, 03:11:05 PM
Is the bolded statement actually true? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that capacity improvement diminishes with each added lane. That is to say, the improvement achieved by going from 2 to 3 lanes is greater than the improvement achieved by going from 4 to 5 lanes. If that's the case, then adding a 13th lane would have very little benefit compared to adding a 2nd lane.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 03:17:14 PM
You are correct in that there are decreasing marginal returns, but that is not the point being made. The point is that if you have some number of lanes where you tell people to go ride the bus instead that is entirely arbitrary. Your point is addressed by my second point regarding an alternative route as being more appropriate than a 13th or 14th lane.
Also note that the above assumes a true 13 lane wide freeway, which is not a good example because few roads are built that way. The Jersey Turnpike is a good example, it has I believe 12 lanes, but segmented to function as two 6 lane roads, which means that the marginal effectiveness of the last 6 lanes built is collectively the same as the first 6 lanes built.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 30, 2021, 04:24:49 PM
I think the number in the quoted post is essentially picked from thin air as a rhetorical device and is not meant to endorse that as a hard-and-fast rule. Rather, he's saying that if you find yourself adding that many lanes to a road, it may be time to step back and assess whether there might be some other fundamental problem that needs to be solved, since just adding lanes clearly isn't working.
Indeed. There are way too many examples of highways that were widened when other improvements would have resolved the issues better. In many cases, the issues are related to high volume onramps located too close to freeway splits. Flyovers work much better in those situations.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 30, 2021, 04:29:15 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on March 19, 2021, 07:48:13 AM
Agree- to a point. At some point, paving the 13th and 14th lane is a signal that other methods of decongestion may be necessary. Throwing in a rail line or some other high-capacity/quality commuter system is necessary when you have massive.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:18:01 PM
Why? There is nothing unique about the 13th lane that does not apply to the 2nd. All you might reasonably say is that rather than adding a 13th lane to that particular road perhaps another route would be in order.
But there are plenty of places on the east coast that would benefit from double deck freeways to remove congestion.
Quote from: kphoger on March 30, 2021, 03:11:05 PM
Is the bolded statement actually true? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that capacity improvement diminishes with each added lane. That is to say, the improvement achieved by going from 2 to 3 lanes is greater than the improvement achieved by going from 4 to 5 lanes. If that's the case, then adding a 13th lane would have very little benefit compared to adding a 2nd lane.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 03:17:14 PM
You are correct in that there are decreasing marginal returns, but that is not the point being made. The point is that if you have some number of lanes where you tell people to go ride the bus instead that is entirely arbitrary. Your point is addressed by my second point regarding an alternative route as being more appropriate than a 13th or 14th lane.
Also note that the above assumes a true 13 lane wide freeway, which is not a good example because few roads are built that way. The Jersey Turnpike is a good example, it has I believe 12 lanes, but segmented to function as two 6 lane roads, which means that the marginal effectiveness of the last 6 lanes built is collectively the same as the first 6 lanes built.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 30, 2021, 04:24:49 PM
I think the number in the quoted post is essentially picked from thin air as a rhetorical device and is not meant to endorse that as a hard-and-fast rule. Rather, he's saying that if you find yourself adding that many lanes to a road, it may be time to step back and assess whether there might be some other fundamental problem that needs to be solved, since just adding lanes clearly isn't working.
Indeed. There are way too many examples of highways that were widened when other improvements would have resolved the issues better. In many cases, the issues are related to high volume onramps located too close to freeway splits. Flyovers work much better in those situations.
That is essentially what I was getting at, that other road improvements are relevant at that point. But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative, which is NOT building flyover ramps etc.
I suppose more narrower freeways may be better at reducing congestion in the region than fewer wider freeways.
Quote from: SeriesE on March 30, 2021, 05:14:03 PM
I suppose more narrower freeways may be better at reducing congestion in the region than fewer wider freeways.
I think the surface road network quality is important, too. The Boston metro area has very few 45+ mph arterials.
(This paragraph is pre-pandemic.) I've also noticed that most buses are near-empty. In my area, the one that goes Lawrence-Lowell-Haverhill is decently full, but that's the only one that is. More people could start using buses, and if the full one gets overfull, run it more often. It's also cheaper than driving in many cases: $1.25 (CharlieCard reduces it to $1.00 for the MVRTA but not the LRTA) each way regardless of distance, with one free transfer.
Quote from: 1 on March 30, 2021, 05:21:00 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on March 30, 2021, 05:14:03 PM
I suppose more narrower freeways may be better at reducing congestion in the region than fewer wider freeways.
I think the surface road network quality is important, too. The Boston metro area has very few 45+ mph arterials.
(This paragraph is pre-pandemic.) I've also noticed that most buses are near-empty. In my area, the one that goes Lawrence-Lowell-Haverhill is decently full, but that's the only one that is. More people could start using buses, and if the full one gets overfull, run it more often. It's also cheaper than driving in many cases: $1.25 (CharlieCard reduces it to $1.00 for the MVRTA but not the LRTA) each way regardless of distance, with one free transfer.
Assuming they'd wind up looking like MA 9, thank God for that
Quote from: SeriesE on March 30, 2021, 05:14:03 PM
I suppose more narrower freeways may be better at reducing congestion in the region than fewer wider freeways.
And also, if you have narrower freeways but more of them, they're more likely to be where people need them.
A lot of it depends on driver behavior as well. The speed differential is related to congestion. Same thing with passing, adherence to merging etiquette, frequency of cutting off, differences in following distances, etc.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 04:39:42 PM
But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative
Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways? Why not clean ones? What am I missing here?
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 30, 2021, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 04:39:42 PM
But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative
Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways? Why not clean ones? What am I missing here?
There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 30, 2021, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 04:39:42 PM
But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative
Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways? Why not clean ones? What am I missing here?
There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.
If it's full enough that people need to stand, run it more often.
Quote from: 1 on March 30, 2021, 09:02:01 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 30, 2021, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 04:39:42 PM
But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative
Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways? Why not clean ones? What am I missing here?
There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.
If it's full enough that people need to stand, run it more often.
At rush hour in many cities they run very often yet have that issue anyway. But even having a seat does little to remove the lady next to me that is clipping her fingernails or the guy across from me who has not bathed in a month or the other guy on my other side with a bag of cans he has been picking up....You could run one every 3 seconds and it still would not make the commute as pleasant as a car ride in a bad car, let alone a nice car.
I'm glad there's someone else on this forum who tells it like it is w.r.t. public transit.
Also, train stations are dangerously polluted. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/10/subway-air-pollution-new-york-washington-dc)
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 30, 2021, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 04:39:42 PM
But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative
Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways? Why not clean ones? What am I missing here?
There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.
Trains in other countries manages to be both clean and efficient. I rather commute by public transit if possible and save driving for weekend pleasure driving trips.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 10:18:14 PM
At rush hour in many cities they run very often yet have that issue anyway. But even having a seat does little to remove the lady next to me that is clipping her fingernails or the guy across from me who has not bathed in a month or the other guy on my other side with a bag of cans he has been picking up....You could run one every 3 seconds and it still would not make the commute as pleasant as a car ride in a bad car, let alone a nice car.
None of this is evidence that the subway trains themselves are filthy. You've shifted your criticism from the cleanliness of the subway trains to your dislike for the people you encounter
on the trains. That's different. And on that note--
What the hell is wrong with picking up cans, and how the hell are you supposed to transport them other than in a bag? Is doing something environmentally responsible like picking up littered recycleable material and then exchanging it for a monetary incentive a
bad thing?
How do you know how long the guy across from you hasn't bathed? Maybe you don't like the way he smells, but do you like it when you encounter folks who smell like a huge cloud of cologne? A lot of folks don't like
that kind of smell either.
Is it really common to clip one's fingernails on a subway train? It sure takes a lot of talent to be able to do it in a moving vehicle.
Frankly, the real world really doesn't give a **** if you don't like the people you encounter on public transit. Whatever mode of travel you want to take from point A to point B is up to you, and a given situation creates an incentive to take public transit over driving a personal vehicle, well, then we all gotta make personal decisions, right? Your comment about "cramming people into filthy subways" is fear-mongering.
If you want to make a valid criticism on the topic, there really should be better distinctions made between latent demand and induced demand, because a lot of the stuff I've read barely seems to bother with telling the two apart. This article is the best I could find in a quick search: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-06/traffic-jam-blame-induced-demand
Quote from: SeriesE on March 31, 2021, 04:20:24 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 30, 2021, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 04:39:42 PM
But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative
Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways? Why not clean ones? What am I missing here?
There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.
Trains in other countries manages to be both clean and efficient. I rather commute by public transit if possible and save driving for weekend pleasure driving trips.
No they don't, and I've travelled out of the country many times.
I just realized kernals12 and HighwayStar are the same person.
Although kernals12 hasn't claimed cyclists don't pay taxes.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 31, 2021, 07:09:15 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on March 31, 2021, 04:20:24 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 30, 2021, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 04:39:42 PM
But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative
Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways? Why not clean ones? What am I missing here?
There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.
Trains in other countries manages to be both clean and efficient. I rather commute by public transit if possible and save driving for weekend pleasure driving trips.
No they don't, and I've travelled out of the country many times.
Not sure where you're coming from there. In my travels, I've come across some great systems. Not everything is like Chicago L levels of dirt or NY Subway levels of weird people. Heck, even Stateside, the DC Metro is kept clean and is a very pleasant way to get around.
Many EU and Asian cities keep perfectly clean, safe urban rail systems (some graffiti in Europe, but hey, we get graffiti on our bridges and stuff too)
Quote from: SectorZ on March 31, 2021, 07:37:22 AM
I just realized kernals12 and HighwayStar are the same person.
Although kernals12 hasn't claimed cyclists don't pay taxes.
I looked through HighwayStar's posts to check if post time activity indicated they were the same person. While doing that, I saw that HighwayStar's posting style is not kid-like at all. They may believe the same things, but their posting styles are very different.
My Dad got pickpocketed on a tram in Nice.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 31, 2021, 07:09:15 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on March 31, 2021, 04:20:24 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 30, 2021, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 04:39:42 PM
But the original comment referenced giving up on roads and cramming people into filthy subways as the alternative
Wait, whose idea was it to cram people into filthy subways? Why not clean ones? What am I missing here?
There is no way to make it clean with that many people on it. You can clean it every hour and it will still be nasty by virtue of people packed in close to you like sardines and doing disgusting things. Been there done that, graduated to driving.
Trains in other countries manages to be both clean and efficient. I rather commute by public transit if possible and save driving for weekend pleasure driving trips.
No they don't, and I've travelled out of the country many times.
I should've clarified the countries: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. Plus Hong Kong, which is more like a city.
I had two decent stints of commuting on DC's Metro. First time -- Green to Red. Second time, Orange from VA.
It's dirtier than you think. I remember riders smearing mucus on thr supports every now and then.
Sure, not all subways are pig stys, but it's also not true that they're squeaky clean.
And, to compare someone who hasn't bathed -- or, one experience I had when I had to commute on SF MUNI's Geary Express: someone who was so drunk they crapped their pants next to me -- to someone wearing too much cologne is ridiculously absurd. The fact of the matter is that people of all walks of life use public transit and yes, there are those that us of the middle and upper classes deem unclean and, in a lot of cases, they are, indicated by odor. The high and mighty defense of public transit above just comes across as unrealistic hyperbole, while it is little wonder why an infrequent public transit rider would deem them germ-infested hellholes (an exaggeration, but understandable).
Telling the latter that the subways aren't as bad as they have experienced is an exercise in futility, for they have their perception of reality from such experience and telling them otherwise just sounds like unfounded theorizing.
Quote from: Rothman on March 31, 2021, 08:39:13 AM
I had two decent stints of commuting on DC's Metro. First time -- Green to Red. Second time, Orange from VA.
It's dirtier than you think. I remember riders smearing mucus on thr supports every now and then.
Sure, not all subways are pig stys, but it's also not true that they're squeaky clean.
And, to compare someone who hasn't bathed -- or, one experience I had when I had to commute on SF MUNI's Geary Express: someone who was so drunk they crapped their pants next to me -- to someone wearing too much cologne is ridiculously absurd. The fact of the matter is that people of all walks of life use public transit and yes, there are those that us of the middle and upper classes deem unclean and, in a lot of cases, they are, indicated by odor. The high and mighty defense of public transit above just comes across as unrealistic hyperbole, while it is little wonder why an infrequent public transit rider would deem them germ-infested hellholes (an exaggeration, but understandable).
Telling the latter that the subways aren't as bad as they have experienced is an exercise in futility, for they have their perception of reality from such experience and telling them otherwise just sounds like unfounded theorizing.
I might ask you how long ago those stints were? I was communing in DC only a couple years ago and it was disgusting. Homeless men carrying bags of cans on the bus, one guy actually brought the SHOPPING CART on and proceeded to argue with the driver until the driver let him stay. Even then I was warned by several people that the trains were no longer safe as bands of teenagers were going around robbing people. And all that was BEFORE the latest round of riots hit. Frankly I have a hard time believing it is not even worse now.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 10:37:18 AM
Homeless men carrying bags of cans on the bus, one guy actually brought the SHOPPING CART on and proceeded to argue with the driver until the driver let him stay.
Again with the cans! What the hell are you supposed to carry them in other than bags? Boxes? Suitcases? Larger cans? Treasure chests?
Watch out for all those scary, spooky folks with cans! I mean, they're carrying BAGS OF CANS--WHAT HORROR!!Why are you so afraid of homeless people anyway? Do you have a problem saying "No" if they ask you for money?
Quote from: kernals12 on March 31, 2021, 07:44:16 AM
My Dad got pickpocketed on a tram in Nice.
30,000+ people per year die in cars and trucks on American roads. I guess every mode of travel is horrifying and we should all just stay home.
Oh yeah, speaking of that:
Quote from: kernals12 on March 30, 2021, 10:48:15 PM
Also, train stations are dangerously polluted. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/10/subway-air-pollution-new-york-washington-dc)
Is saying train stations are dangerously polluted any more of an argument against trains than saying highways are dangerously polluted is an argument against highways? Because, as I'm sure most people here are aware, they are. https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/who-is-at-risk/highways
How did we go from debunking induced demand to this? ^
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 10:37:18 AM
one guy actually brought the SHOPPING CART on and proceeded to argue with the driver until the driver let him stay.
You mean this ...
(https://carts4u.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/3e36d6f359d1e29558b74dea3394729a/i/m/img_2242.jpg)
... or this?
(https://foter.com/photos/373/large-shopping-grocery-cart-2.jpg)
I've personally carried the latter onto a bus several times, back when I
couldn't afford to own a car at all and lived 1½ miles from the nearest grocery store.
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 12:27:50 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 10:37:18 AM
one guy actually brought the SHOPPING CART on and proceeded to argue with the driver until the driver let him stay.
You mean this ...
(https://carts4u.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/3e36d6f359d1e29558b74dea3394729a/i/m/img_2242.jpg)
... or this?
(https://foter.com/photos/373/large-shopping-grocery-cart-2.jpg)
I've personally carried the latter onto a bus several times, back when I couldn't afford to own a car at all and lived 1½ miles from the nearest grocery store.
The former, and it was not full of groceries, it was full of TRASH :banghead:
Empty 5¢ deposit cans are not trash.
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 01:08:38 PM
Empty 5¢ deposit cans are not trash.
Yes they are, they are filthy, they smell, they were thrown out, therefore they are trash. And they have no business on public transport.
New York (the state, not just the city) says that any places that sell 5¢ deposit cans must also accept them for 5¢ each; in an urban area, that means you're always within walking distance of a place where you can deposit them, so public transit would not be required to get your deposit back. (Unfortunately, most business owners don't know this.) I don't know if this applies everywhere with bottle deposits or just New York, though.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 01:10:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 01:08:38 PM
Empty 5¢ deposit cans are not trash.
Yes they are, they are filthy, they smell, they were thrown out, therefore they are trash. And they have no business on public transport.
I agree. Just because something can be recycled, that doesn't mean it isn't trash. One man's trash is another man's treasure, they say, but that doesn't mean it ceases being trash.
I dont think the chart debunks anything because of the scale. When people talk about induced demand, they talk about key links, not the overall road network.
Imagine you have a town along the river. Across the river, there is nothing. A bridge is built. People start building houses on the other side and traveling back and forth. Demand to cross the river went from 0 trips a day to 10,000 thanks to the bridge. Thats induced demand.
While thats an extreme example, the same is true when highways are built/widened leading to open space. What used to be a 1 hour trip to the CBD is now 20. People start buying up the land and building homes because people care about time to jobs, not miles.
You can also induce demand via transit. Theres a famous NYC photo with subways being built to empty land. As expected, homes popped up soon after.
In fact, many of the first transit companies were simply real estate companies. They built trains for the express purpose of selling real estate.
Induced demand is a well studied and proven phenomenon. Your chart debunks it in the same way that holding a snowball in the senate debunks climate change.
There can be several key links where building one will take it off another. For example, if there's a Long Island Sound crossing built, eastern Long Island will get more traffic, but it will take traffic off horribly congested I-95 in Connecticut and likely some western Long Island roads (for drivers who no longer have to go around the Sound).
And to add to my comment, I just came across this article that notes how induced demand can also include other modes.
Quote
The researchers collected data, including the lengths of new bike lanes and data from bike counters, from 106 cities across Europe. The bike counters allowed the researchers to measure the number of cyclists citywide, not just on the new bike paths. They analyzed the number of cyclists from March through July and found that in cities that had added bike lanes, cycling increased 11 percent to 48 percent more than in cities that had not added bike lanes.
The researchers found that the increase held when controlling for weather and changes in public transit supply and demand.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/climate/bikes-climate-change.html
Of course someone will counter it with "they built a bike lane near my house and no one uses it," as if an anecdote trumps data from 106 cities (!)
I think we should switch tactics to counter the Big Lie of induced demand. Rather than saying a highway expansion will reduce congestion, we should say that it increases mobility. It means people can access more affordable housing further from where they work, it means they can make more visits to their relatives, and they can more frequently go out to the countryside on the weekend.
Quote from: jamess on April 06, 2021, 11:48:12 AM
And to add to my comment, I just came across this article that notes how induced demand can also include other modes.
Quote
The researchers collected data, including the lengths of new bike lanes and data from bike counters, from 106 cities across Europe. The bike counters allowed the researchers to measure the number of cyclists citywide, not just on the new bike paths. They analyzed the number of cyclists from March through July and found that in cities that had added bike lanes, cycling increased 11 percent to 48 percent more than in cities that had not added bike lanes.
The researchers found that the increase held when controlling for weather and changes in public transit supply and demand.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/climate/bikes-climate-change.html
Of course someone will counter it with "they built a bike lane near my house and no one uses it," as if an anecdote trumps data from 106 cities (!)
Trying to read the data, I noticed this bit of info:
Quote
Bicycle Counter Data.
...This means that we investigate percentage changes rather than absolute increases in the number of cyclists...
If cities that increased bike lanes had low utilization of existing bike lanes, it wouldn't take much to increase the percentage. Let's say, there were 100 bicyclists, and additional bike lanes added 50 bicyclists, that's an increase of 50%.
But if cities already had a large existing network, and numerous bicyclists using them, it would take a substantial number of additional people to get the same percentage increase. If a location has 10,000 bicyclists, and there's another 50 bicyclists even though a new lane wasn't added, that's an increase of 0.05%.
Thus, the report is flawed. Same number of people started using bicycles in each city, but by playing with numbers to support the researcher's conclusion, they ignored the numbers of bicyclists and went with percentages instead.
Quote from: kphoger on March 19, 2021, 11:29:58 AM
And I think we need to define the terms carefully: induced demand vs latent demand.
When we build a completely new road, ALL use of the road is "induced demand". No one previously used the road BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T. It wasn't there.
The biggest relief on a limited access road comes from widening them from 2 lanes to 3 per direction. In the disciplined parts of California, adding a third lane goes from "Trucks, slow vehicles, and exiting traffic" mixing it up in the right lane and "Through traffic, fast vehicles, and passing" mixing it up in the right with 2 lanes to, in the case of three lanes, "Trucks and exiting traffic" on the right, "through traffic and those passing slower traffic" in the middle, and "Passing and fast through traffic on the left". With 3 lanes everybody stays more or less where they belong until they feel that they don't belong there anymore. In addition, the third lane increases the theoretical capacity by 50%. Because of queuing, the formula q=r/(1-r), when the road is at, say 75% capacity, says that q=0.75/0.25=3. When we add a lane, we are at only 50% capacity and get 0.5/0.5=1, so there is 3 times less conflict.
As otherwise proposed, adding a seventh lane to a roadway that is already 6 lanes in that direction only helps a little. It is also usually more expensive to try to add a 7th lane than possibly to build a whole new roadway with 2 lanes in each direction. The new roadway has the advantage that, if they pick the right of way properly, some people might actually have wanted to go where the new road goes and get off of the existing road.
Quote from: jamess on April 06, 2021, 11:48:12 AM
Of course someone will counter it with "they built a bike lane near my house and no one uses it," as if an anecdote trumps data from 106 cities (!)
It really helps to look at bike lanes as a system. My street has a bike lane that nobody uses, but that's because at either end it runs out to four-lane arterials with no bike lanes. So of course nobody uses it, because once you get to the end of it there's no bike lanes to take you where you actually want to go. If you're going to add bike lanes, you need a
system of them that connect with each other and provide options for actual routes.
Quote from: michravera on April 06, 2021, 01:46:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 19, 2021, 11:29:58 AM
And I think we need to define the terms carefully: induced demand vs latent demand.
When we build a completely new road, ALL use of the road is "induced demand". No one previously used the road BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T. It wasn't there.
No, it's serving latent demand. For it to be induced demand you'd have to have people making the decision to drive more because of the new road. Nobody does that. The traffic on the new road is being removed from existing roads.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2021, 02:05:42 PM
It really helps to look at bike lanes as a system. My street has a bike lane that nobody uses, but that's because at either end it runs out to four-lane arterials with no bike lanes. So of course nobody uses it, because once you get to the end of it there's no bike lanes to take you where you actually want to go. If you're going to add bike lanes, you need a system of them that connect with each other and provide options for actual routes.
OTOH, any such system gets built one bike lane at a time.