What are implications of this
Ross Williams
http://www.nytimes.com/library/auto/000128cars.html
"Lawrence Barr, of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, a
Transportation Department research office in Cambridge, Mass., said
census data showed that of the time drivers saved with new roads, they
spent 30 to 50 percent of it driving farther."
If this ist true then if you save someone 5 minutes on a 30 minute
commuter they will spend 1.5 to 2.5 of those minutes driving further.
At 60 mph that is 1.5 to 2.5 more road they require for their trip.
What impact does this have on the entire road network in terms of the
need for new roads? Is it a wash or is it possible/likely that adding
some capacity may actually increase overall traffic and congestion
even where it successfully increased travel times for some drivers.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> From a New York Times article posted on this forum.
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/auto/000128cars.html
>
> "Lawrence Barr, of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, a
> Transportation Department research office in Cambridge, Mass., said
> census data showed that of the time drivers saved with new roads, they
> spent 30 to 50 percent of it driving farther."
More excerpts from the article:
"One speaker from outside academia, Neil J. Pederson, planning director
of the Maryland State Highway Administration, said that induced travel
clearly was taking place, but that recent experience showed this could
not be used as a tool for development. Maryland had built improved
roads in its western panhandle, the part squeezed between West Virginia
and Pennsylvania, to try to stimulate economic growth there, but the
growth failed to follow. 'Providing highway capacity will not in and of
itself cause growth to occur if there is not latent demand,' he said".
[the last sentence is key - SMK]
"And the county in his state that has shown the greatest growth in the
last 10 years, St. Mary's, south of Washington, has had no new highways
at all".
"Mr. Pederson said that Maryland backed 'smart growth,' an effort to
limit congestion and encourage a balanced transportation system, but he
gave two reasons that growth must include new roads. One is that if the
highways in an urban area become too congested, developers will start
building farther and farther out, which will make people drive even
more. The other, he said, is that developers would not build offices
and shops near transit stations unless they also had highway access,
since the commercial buildings have to be served by trucks".
[the last two sentences are key - SMK]
I live in Virginia, a next door neighbor to Maryland, and those
observations about Western Maryland and St. Mary's County are well
known.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
Larry Gross
Ross Williams wrote:
> From a New York Times article posted on this forum.
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/auto/000128cars.html
>
> "Lawrence Barr, of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, a
> Transportation Department research office in Cambridge, Mass., said
> census data showed that of the time drivers saved with new roads, they
> spent 30 to 50 percent of it driving farther."
>
> If this ist true then if you save someone 5 minutes on a 30 minute
> commuter they will spend 1.5 to 2.5 of those minutes driving further.
> At 60 mph that is 1.5 to 2.5 more road they require for their trip.
>
> What impact does this have on the entire road network in terms of the
> need for new roads? Is it a wash or is it possible/likely that adding
> some capacity may actually increase overall traffic and congestion
> even where it successfully increased travel times for some drivers.
In part, this explains why VMT has more than doubled - approaching
triple in the last 30 years. My view is that growth drives the need for
new roads but if the new roads are high-speed limited access roads
( as opposed to spoke/radial primaries or limited access toll roads)
that they attract more traffic that the actual rate of population growth.
IOW.. people WILL drive further is it saves them time.. The big
rub here is that when this does happen.. the projected life of the road
is reduced and that in turn means that the cost-effective figures ( which
relied on growth projections) are wrong. The professional folks say
basically that they don't think this is true.. and even if it was.. they
can't do anything about it.
Larry Gross
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> More excerpts from the article:
>
> "One speaker from outside academia, Neil J. Pederson, planning director
> of the Maryland State Highway Administration, said that induced travel
> clearly was taking place, but that recent experience showed this could
> not be used as a tool for development. Maryland had built improved
> roads in its western panhandle, the part squeezed between West Virginia
> and Pennsylvania, to try to stimulate economic growth there, but the
> growth failed to follow. 'Providing highway capacity will not in and of
> itself cause growth to occur if there is not latent demand,' he said".
>
> [the last sentence is key - SMK]
we need to better characterize 'latent demand'... for what? I don't think
that demand is the same thing in different contexts.
> "And the county in his state that has shown the greatest growth in the
> last 10 years, St. Mary's, south of Washington, has had no new highways
> at all".
>
> "Mr. Pederson said that Maryland backed 'smart growth,' an effort to
> limit congestion and encourage a balanced transportation system, but he
> gave two reasons that growth must include new roads. One is that if the
> highways in an urban area become too congested, developers will start
> building farther and farther out, which will make people drive even
> more. The other, he said, is that developers would not build offices
> and shops near transit stations unless they also had highway access,
> since the commercial buildings have to be served by trucks".
>
> [the last two sentences are key - SMK]
>
> I live in Virginia, a next door neighbor to Maryland, and those
> observations about Western Maryland and St. Mary's County are well
> known.
we don't need wide commuter-capacity roads for trucks though.. if
the area is served by transit for people. Crystal City is a good example
of this.
David Jensen
Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote in <38941315...@pobox.com>:
I promise not to argue with you about this any more. From now on, I will
pronounce "latent" whenever I see i-n-d-u-c-e-d.
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
>
> I promise not to argue with you about this any more. From now on, I will
> pronounce "latent" whenever I see i-n-d-u-c-e-d.
ust remember "latent" demand doesn't necessarily mean 'good' demand. If
we built all new roads to be able to serve long-distance commuters...we'd
run out of money and land long before we ran out of 'demand'.
John Lansford
>I don't think you can lump all professionals together. The fact is that highway engineers and traffic planners get paid
>to build road networks.
And repair them, and restore them, make them safer, make them more
attractive, more efficient, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention improving
the environment, building transit facilities, etc, etc.
> Suggesting that roads may not always be a benefit is not really at their "pay level". Those are
>decisions citizens must make through their elected officials.
Who just happen to listen to the recommendations of professionals...
> Of course everyone thinks their work is important,
I don't have to "think". I KNOW my work is important.
Why, I bet even you think your work is important. To you.
> so you
>would expect some resistance to change from people whose lives are dedicated to building more roads.
And make them safer, more efficient, more attractive, and building
transit facilities and improving the environment....
John Lansford, PE
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Larry Gross
Ross Williams wrote:
> I don't think you can lump all professionals together. The fact is that highway engineers and traffic planners get paid
> to build road networks. Suggesting that roads may not always be a benefit is not really at their "pay level". Those are
> decisions citizens must make through their elected officials. Of course everyone thinks their work is important, so you
> would expect some resistance to change from people whose lives are dedicated to building more roads.
>
> If the numbers sited above are true it is almost certainly the case that efforts to speed auto commutes lead to higher
> VMT. The question is what is the cost of providing roads for those additional miles travelled. For a while those milse
> may be abosorbed by excess capacity in the system, but eventually you are going to have congestion reappear elsewhere.
my view is that if you have more road needs than funding then you should be priortizing
roads that _divert_ traffic from congested roads HIGHER than roads that will actually
induce more traffic.
Rob Dubnicka
What roads "induce" traffic? Can you identify them in advance? How do you know? How is "induced" traffic defined?
Here we go again....
Larry Gross
Rob Dubnicka wrote:
> > my view is that if you have more road needs than funding then you should be priortizing
> > roads that _divert_ traffic from congested roads HIGHER than roads that will actually
> > induce more traffic.
>
> What roads "induce" traffic? Can you identify them in advance? How do you know? How is "induced" traffic defined?
>
well of course.. the onces that divert less traffic than other roads. :-)
Jim Mearkle
In the short term, traffic is "induced" when a capacity improvement
releases pent-up demand, and people drive more than they did before. If
traffic diverts from a parallel route, but the total VMT for both routes
stays the same, no traffic was induced.
I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume is
both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced, but
who can say whether the land would have been developed anyway?
--
Jim Mearkle, Civil Engineer 1, NYSDOT
This is my opinion, not the Department's.
Ask the questions that have no answers.
--Wendell Berry
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Larry Gross
Jim Mearkle wrote:
> In article <38976446...@pobox.com>,
> lgr...@pobox.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rob Dubnicka wrote:
> >
> > > > my view is that if you have more road needs than funding then you
> should be priortizing
> > > > roads that _divert_ traffic from congested roads HIGHER than roads
> that will actually
> > > > induce more traffic.
> > >
> > > What roads "induce" traffic? Can you identify them in advance? How
> do you know? How is "induced" traffic defined?
> > >
> >
> > well of course.. the onces that divert less traffic than other roads.
> :-)
> >
>
> In the short term, traffic is "induced" when a capacity improvement
> releases pent-up demand, and people drive more than they did before. If
> traffic diverts from a parallel route, but the total VMT for both routes
> stays the same, no traffic was induced.
YES! so it sounds like you'd agree that if total VMT goes up that traffic
is permanent.. as a result of the induced phenomena.
> I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume is
> both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
>
> I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
> increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced, but
> who can say whether the land would have been developed anyway?
maybe.. but if total VMT goes up then you've developed land at the
expense of the highway system which now must accommodate a
permanent increase in VMT. I wonder if cost effectiveness of roads
is based on a formular for VMT. In other words.. a lower VMT should
show a longer projected lifespan before additonal lanes are needed..
a large VMT would show a projected shorter lifespan.
Robert Cote
ro...@cfstns.org wrote:
> I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence that new roads lead to
> new development.
I'm sure you think that also.
Anyway to find out or do we need to take your word for it?
Rob Dubnicka
> In article <38976446...@pobox.com>,
> lgr...@pobox.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rob Dubnicka wrote:
> >
> > > > my view is that if you have more road needs than funding then you
> should be priortizing
> > > > roads that _divert_ traffic from congested roads HIGHER than roads
> that will actually
> > > > induce more traffic.
> > >
> > > What roads "induce" traffic? Can you identify them in advance? How
> do you know? How is "induced" traffic defined?
> > >
> >
> > well of course.. the onces that divert less traffic than other roads.
> :-)
> >
>
> In the short term, traffic is "induced" when a capacity improvement
> releases pent-up demand, and people drive more than they did before.
Where did this pent-up demand come from? And where is it going?
> If
> traffic diverts from a parallel route, but the total VMT for both routes
> stays the same, no traffic was induced.
The views I've read (and follow) is that the VMT is irrelevant in this case.
If the origins/destinations are the same, and traffic diverts from one route
to another, it is diverted traffic.
>
> I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume is
> both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
Makes it hard to implement as a policy or analysis procedure, doesn't it?
>
> I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
> increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced,
This, I believe, is the heart of the matter. Those who scream "induced
traffic fills up our roadways as fast as you widen them" appear to believe:
new capacity leads to more/new development leads to more traffic - therefore
capacity creates traffic.
The logic is more than slightly faulty, since whether or not development
occurs is *not* a foregone conclusion, let alone what type of development
and the trip generation characteristics associated with it - and hence, I
believe, the disparity in the numbers you cite above.
> but
> who can say whether the land would have been developed anyway?
Or if the planning for the roadway took such development into accout, and
the development occurs faster than expected.
Larry Gross
Robert Cote wrote:
gee.. let's start another thread.
Larry Gross
Ross Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 04:00:32 GMT, Jim Mearkle <sable...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <38976446...@pobox.com>,
> > lgr...@pobox.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Rob Dubnicka wrote:
> >>
> >> > > my view is that if you have more road needs than funding then you
> >should be priortizing
> >> > > roads that _divert_ traffic from congested roads HIGHER than roads
> >that will actually
> >> > > induce more traffic.
> >> >
> >> > What roads "induce" traffic? Can you identify them in advance? How
> >do you know? How is "induced" traffic defined?
> >> >
> >>
> >> well of course.. the onces that divert less traffic than other roads.
> >:-)
> >>
> >
> >In the short term, traffic is "induced" when a capacity improvement
> >releases pent-up demand, and people drive more than they did before. If
> >traffic diverts from a parallel route, but the total VMT for both routes
> >stays the same, no traffic was induced.
> >
> >I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume is
> >both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
>
> I am sure the answer is it depends. Do you know of any online sources of studies on this issue?
>
> >
> >I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
> >increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced, but
> >who can say whether the land would have been developed anyway?
>
> I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence that new roads lead to new development.
not according to these guys.. they claim it would be developed anyhow...
Larry Gross
Rob Dubnicka wrote:
> Jim Mearkle wrote:
>
> > In article <38976446...@pobox.com>,
> > lgr...@pobox.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob Dubnicka wrote:
> > >
> > > > > my view is that if you have more road needs than funding then you
> > should be priortizing
> > > > > roads that _divert_ traffic from congested roads HIGHER than roads
> > that will actually
> > > > > induce more traffic.
> > > >
> > > > What roads "induce" traffic? Can you identify them in advance? How
> > do you know? How is "induced" traffic defined?
> > > >
> > >
> > > well of course.. the onces that divert less traffic than other roads.
> > :-)
> > >
> >
> > In the short term, traffic is "induced" when a capacity improvement
> > releases pent-up demand, and people drive more than they did before.
>
> Where did this pent-up demand come from? And where is it going?
>
> > If
> > traffic diverts from a parallel route, but the total VMT for both routes
> > stays the same, no traffic was induced.
>
> The views I've read (and follow) is that the VMT is irrelevant in this case.
> If the origins/destinations are the same, and traffic diverts from one route
> to another, it is diverted traffic.
>
> >
> > I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume is
> > both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
>
> Makes it hard to implement as a policy or analysis procedure, doesn't it?
>
> >
> > I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
> > increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced,
>
> This, I believe, is the heart of the matter. Those who scream "induced
> traffic fills up our roadways as fast as you widen them" appear to believe:
> new capacity leads to more/new development leads to more traffic - therefore
> capacity creates traffic.
>
> The logic is more than slightly faulty, since whether or not development
> occurs is *not* a foregone conclusion, let alone what type of development
> and the trip generation characteristics associated with it - and hence, I
> believe, the disparity in the numbers you cite above.
>
> > but
> > who can say whether the land would have been developed anyway?
>
> Or if the planning for the roadway took such development into accout, and
> the development occurs faster than expected.
I think it is safe to say that if a town was 60 miles away from say.. an urban
center like DC and the ONLY way to get there was normal primary roads
and many, many signals that not too many people would choose to live
there and commute to DC -------> EVER... one way = 2+ hours commute time
Now take the same situation and build a high-speed limited access facility
from DC to that small town... and see what happens. one way = 1+ hours commute
time.
If you don't think this traffic is induced..... give me a better example. and..
oh BTW... this will result in dramatically increased VMT.
Larry Gross
Robert Cote wrote:
> In article <389A1D25...@pobox.com>, lgr...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> > Robert Cote wrote:
> >
> > > In article <4s1k9skopb17ph25g...@4ax.com>,
> > > ro...@cfstns.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence that new roads lead
> > > > to
> > > > new development.
> > >
> > > I'm sure you think that also.
> > >
> > > Anyway to find out or do we need to take your word for it?
> >
> > gee.. let's start another thread.
>
> Larry, you don't get it. Ross (pronounced ruse) is speaking
> out of turn. It's time he defended his claims and started
> listening to the answers he keeps asking for. No more claims
> without evidence and no more innocent questions that require
> lots of effort but generate no acknowledgement.
I think youse guys just don't like Ross cuz he's not one of you.
At times MTR reminds me of a bunch of frumpy clerics
who have come upon a sinner. ( tongue firmly in cheek).
Scott M. Kozel
Larry, listen to Robert. Various road critics have posted here, and
good productive discussions have resulted. We are discussing very
important issues here, and we need to debate the issues appropriately.
Larry Gross
Robert Cote wrote:
>
> > I think youse guys just don't like Ross cuz he's not one of you.
> > At times MTR reminds me of a bunch of frumpy clerics
> > who have come upon a sinner. ( tongue firmly in cheek).
>
> I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence
> that new roads NEVER lead to new development.
>
> Got a problem with that? Gonna give me a free
> pass on this statement? You won't mind if I
> don't bother to respond when you reply with a
> thoughtful counterarguement? You won't mind
> if it reoccurs in any old thread anytime in
> the future regardless of your attempts to
> refute? You don't think this is disruptive
> behavoir? You won't mind if I keep this up
> every time you post? Oh, and don't bother to
> enlist any help from your cadre of buddies as
> I have them killfiled and they are all in
> league with obstructionsts anyway and their
> opinions are suspect and their expertise is
> to be ignored.
je-so-man.. we don't have to be anal about this.
I'm gonna go get another glass of merlot and
comptemplate my navel for the rest of the night.
Ross.. you're on your own.
Robert Cote
> Robert Cote wrote:
>
> > In article <4s1k9skopb17ph25g...@4ax.com>,
> > ro...@cfstns.org wrote:
> >
> > > I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence that new roads lead
> > > to
> > > new development.
> >
> > I'm sure you think that also.
> >
> > Anyway to find out or do we need to take your word for it?
>
> gee.. let's start another thread.
Robert Cote
> I think youse guys just don't like Ross cuz he's not one of you.
> At times MTR reminds me of a bunch of frumpy clerics
> who have come upon a sinner. ( tongue firmly in cheek).
I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence
that new roads NEVER lead to new development.
Got a problem with that? Gonna give me a free
pass on this statement? You won't mind if I
don't bother to respond when you reply with a
thoughtful counterarguement? You won't mind
if it reoccurs in any old thread anytime in
the future regardless of your attempts to
refute? You don't think this is disruptive
behavoir? You won't mind if I keep this up
every time you post? Oh, and don't bother to
enlist any help from your cadre of buddies as
I have them killfiled and they are all in
league with obstructionsts anyway and their
opinions are suspect and their expertise is
to be ignored.
You don't get it, Ruse is disruptive not thought
provoking.
Jon Morse
>> I think youse guys just don't like Ross cuz he's not one of you.
>> At times MTR reminds me of a bunch of frumpy clerics
>> who have come upon a sinner. ( tongue firmly in cheek).
>
>Larry, listen to Robert. Various road critics have posted here, and
>good productive discussions have resulted. We are discussing very
>important issues here, and we need to debate the issues appropriately.
For example, Aaron Renn, who objects to well over half the projects I see ever
him discussing. (Most notably: I-69 direct route from Indy to Evansville; new
suburban Chicago tollways). But, gee, somehow the only disagreement he ever
encounters is polite and constructive.
Or Bentley, who's also stepped up and questioned proposed projects.
Or the hordes of posters in this group who think that I-99 is not only an
insult because of the method of its designation, but question the need for a
freeway in that corridor period.
There's a reason for that. Some people might do well to figure out what that
reason is.
Jon Morse
Herndon, VA
via lots of much larger places
Ross Williams
wrote:
>
>
>Ross Williams wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 04:00:32 GMT, Jim Mearkle <sable...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <38976446...@pobox.com>,
>> > lgr...@pobox.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Rob Dubnicka wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > my view is that if you have more road needs than funding then you
>> >should be priortizing
>> >> > > roads that _divert_ traffic from congested roads HIGHER than roads
>> >that will actually
>> >> > > induce more traffic.
>> >> >
>> >> > What roads "induce" traffic? Can you identify them in advance? How
>> >do you know? How is "induced" traffic defined?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> well of course.. the onces that divert less traffic than other roads.
>> >:-)
>> >>
>> >
>> >In the short term, traffic is "induced" when a capacity improvement
>> >releases pent-up demand, and people drive more than they did before. If
>> >traffic diverts from a parallel route, but the total VMT for both routes
>> >stays the same, no traffic was induced.
>> >
>> >I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume is
>> >both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
>>
>> I am sure the answer is it depends. Do you know of any online sources of studies on this issue?
>>
>> >
>> >I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
>> >increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced, but
>> >who can say whether the land would have been developed anyway?
>>
>> I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence that new roads lead to new development.
>
>not according to these guys.. they claim it would be developed anyhow...
>
I know they claim that. They are wrong.
David Jensen
Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote in
<rl1m9soqfgnjj45nk...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 19:27:42 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Ross Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 04:00:32 GMT, Jim Mearkle <sable...@my-deja.com> wrote:
...
>>> >I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume is
>>> >both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
>>>
>>> I am sure the answer is it depends. Do you know of any online sources of studies on this issue?
>>>
>>> >
>>> >I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
>>> >increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced, but
>>> >who can say whether the land would have been developed anyway?
>>>
>>> I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence that new roads lead to new development.
>>
>>not according to these guys.. they claim it would be developed anyhow...
>>
>
>I know they claim that. They are wrong.
Well, Ross, you might be right. If you strangle the transportation
system, the sprawl will slow and the poor will suffer.
Who wants economic growth anyway? Is there one country with a good
transportation system that is poor? Is there a rich country with an
inadequate transportation system?
Good transportation is a major part of economic growth. It, along with
many other inputs, enables that growth. You may be satisfied with what
you have, but do you really feel that you have the right to tell other
people that they cannot participate? What makes you the arbiter of
"enough". You don't think that you can ever stop the rich from using the
resources. If resources are constrained, the people with the most money
get to use them.
Robert Cote
ro...@cfstns.org wrote:
> The idea that a new road will speed up the commute
> times for existing commuters is one of those arguments. It may be true in
> a few instances but the experience with
> growing congestion created by people driving more and more would indicate
> that is not the case generally.
Great, now we have claims of "generally" increasing commute times.
One more to add to the growing list of unsubstantiated claims.
> We have been
> adding VMT faster than population
Yes, in direct proportion to the economy and demographics of
more people of driving age. Your point?
> and it would appear that new lanes of
> road in congested areas create more new traffic
> than they provide space for
You keep saying this as if you have evidence.
David Jensen
Ross Williams <ro...@cfstns.org> wrote in
<0r9m9scf4anh5qefk...@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:05:42 GMT, David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>Is there a rich country with an inadequate transportation system?
>
>To hear some people here talk you would think it was the United States or at least the states of Virginia and Maryland
>and D.C.
It is certainly overloaded.
>All transportation systems provide opportunities. When they involve a public investment it requires a public
>discussion of the value of different opportunities and the costs of people taking them. Because we are a democratic
>country that public discussion often involves a lot of propaganda by those who will benefit from one choice or another
Funny how the anti-road forces have to resort to the courts so often to
undermine democracy and stop the construction of roads.
>trying to persuade everyone else that it will also benefit them. The idea that a new road will speed up the commute
>times for existing commuters is one of those arguments. It may be true in a few instances but the experience with
>growing congestion created by people driving more and more would indicate that is not the case generally. We have been
>adding VMT faster than population and it would appear that new lanes of road in congested areas create more new traffic
>than they provide space for.
Why should capacity not grow at the same rate as VMT? Every other
service grows to support the demands of the customers. Roads need to do
the same if we really care about meeting the desires and needs of the
customers--drivers.
VMT has outstripped capacity, especially in fast-growing major
metropolitan areas. Fix the capacity, if DC had added capacity at the
rate it added VMT it would not have a traffic problem. Why blame the
customers just because you don't like what they do? Why shouldn't people
be allowed to drive where they want when they want if they are willing
to pay for it. Why should drivers subsidize transit?
You object to the fact that motor vehicle taxes collected for the trust
fund get used for the purpose for which the trust fund was set up, why?
I think we will have to have some kind of alternate transportation
program because there will always be people who cannot drive. Maybe this
program should be subsidized by general revenue. Let's talk about that,
but don't try to make me believe that transit has a moral claim on trust
fund resources. I'm perfectly willing to privatize roads and transit.
Would you?
Larry Gross
Jon Morse wrote:
> koz...@richmond.infi.net (Scott M. Kozel) wrote:
>
> >> I think youse guys just don't like Ross cuz he's not one of you.
> >> At times MTR reminds me of a bunch of frumpy clerics
> >> who have come upon a sinner. ( tongue firmly in cheek).
> >
> >Larry, listen to Robert. Various road critics have posted here, and
> >good productive discussions have resulted. We are discussing very
> >important issues here, and we need to debate the issues appropriately.
>
> For example, Aaron Renn, who objects to well over half the projects I see ever
> him discussing. (Most notably: I-69 direct route from Indy to Evansville; new
> suburban Chicago tollways). But, gee, somehow the only disagreement he ever
> encounters is polite and constructive.
>
> Or Bentley, who's also stepped up and questioned proposed projects.
>
> Or the hordes of posters in this group who think that I-99 is not only an
> insult because of the method of its designation, but question the need for a
> freeway in that corridor period.
You mean there are NIMBY's in this NG. gawd.
Larry Gross
Ross Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 19:27:42 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ross Williams wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 04:00:32 GMT, Jim Mearkle <sable...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <38976446...@pobox.com>,
> >> > lgr...@pobox.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Rob Dubnicka wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > > my view is that if you have more road needs than funding then you
> >> >should be priortizing
> >> >> > > roads that _divert_ traffic from congested roads HIGHER than roads
> >> >that will actually
> >> >> > > induce more traffic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What roads "induce" traffic? Can you identify them in advance? How
> >> >do you know? How is "induced" traffic defined?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> well of course.. the onces that divert less traffic than other roads.
> >> >:-)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >In the short term, traffic is "induced" when a capacity improvement
> >> >releases pent-up demand, and people drive more than they did before. If
> >> >traffic diverts from a parallel route, but the total VMT for both routes
> >> >stays the same, no traffic was induced.
> >> >
> >> >I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume is
> >> >both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
> >>
> >> I am sure the answer is it depends. Do you know of any online sources of studies on this issue?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
> >> >increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced, but
> >> >who can say whether the land would have been developed anyway?
> >>
> >> I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence that new roads lead to new development.
> >
> >not according to these guys.. they claim it would be developed anyhow...
> >
>
> I know they claim that. They are wrong.
they don't realize it yet. we have a load of work ahead of us.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> koz...@richmond.infi.net (Scott M. Kozel) wrote:
>
> >Various road critics have posted here, and
> >good productive discussions have resulted. We are discussing very
> >important issues here, and we need to debate the issues appropriately.
>
> For example, Aaron Renn, who objects to well over half the projects I see ever
> him discussing. (Most notably: I-69 direct route from Indy to Evansville; new
> suburban Chicago tollways). But, gee, somehow the only disagreement he ever
> encounters is polite and constructive.
True indeed. I read misc.transport.urban-transit too, and there are a
number of proposed transit projects that Aaron has objected to also.
> Or Bentley, who's also stepped up and questioned proposed projects.
True indeed.
> Or the hordes of posters in this group who think that I-99 is not only an
> insult because of the method of its designation, but question the need for a
> freeway in that corridor period.
True indeed.
> There's a reason for that. Some people might do well to figure out what that
> reason is.
People who object on a project-specific basis with solid reasons,
typically receive the "polite and constructive" disagreement that Jon
mentions.
Larry Gross
Robert Cote wrote:
> > We have been
> > adding VMT faster than population
>
> Yes, in direct proportion to the economy ....
if you can back this up with data.. say.. a chart
that shows economic growth in lock step with VMT..
you've got something worth looking at. otherwise..
... handwaving....
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 09:05:46 -0800, in misc.transport.road
> Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote in
> <rl1m9soqfgnjj45nk...@4ax.com>:
>
> >On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 19:27:42 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Ross Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 04:00:32 GMT, Jim Mearkle <sable...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>> >I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume is
> >>> >both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
> >>>
> >>> I am sure the answer is it depends. Do you know of any online sources of studies on this issue?
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
> >>> >increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced, but
> >>> >who can say whether the land would have been developed anyway?
> >>>
> >>> I think there is some pretty conclusive evidence that new roads lead to new development.
> >>
> >>not according to these guys.. they claim it would be developed anyhow...
> >>
> >
> >I know they claim that. They are wrong.
>
> Well, Ross, you might be right. If you strangle the transportation
> system, the sprawl will slow and the poor will suffer.
>
> Who wants economic growth anyway? Is there one country with a good
> transportation system that is poor? Is there a rich country with an
> inadequate transportation system?
>
> Good transportation is a major part of economic growth. It, along with
> many other inputs, enables that growth. You may be satisfied with what
> you have, but do you really feel that you have the right to tell other
> people that they cannot participate? What makes you the arbiter of
> "enough". You don't think that you can ever stop the rich from using the
> resources. If resources are constrained, the people with the most money
> get to use them.
I know that many people feel this way but the truth is that any road at
any cost is not the same as building cost-effective roads. If you believe
the DOTs and FHWA roads cannot be built for economic purposes.
They merely respond to demand. The question is --- is _any_ kind
of demand in the best interest of all of us AND the economy? IOW,
the state could collect enough liquor tax to afford to be able to sell
whisky for 50 cents but is that really in everyones best interest?
closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
having health problems? Is this really what we want to do? Do we
just toss the older people and young people over board in order for
us to have a 'healthy' economy driven by roads that ultimately harm
people's health? Who ends up paying for the health impacts? US.
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
> Funny how the anti-road forces have to resort to the courts so often to
> undermine democracy and stop the construction of roads.
just curious.. how many court actions are there with respect to roads
nationwide? 10.. 20.. 300...? got a guess? There are _thousands_ of
road projects underway across the county.. what percentage of these
end up in court? 50%... 10%.. .01% ???
>
>
> Why should capacity not grow at the same rate as VMT? Every other
> service grows to support the demands of the customers. Roads need to do
> the same if we really care about meeting the desires and needs of the
> customers--drivers.
because.. when VMT increases.. capacity is REDUCED... VMT
essentially makes roads less effective..thus reguires more roads
and more money for roads. VMT undercuts the cost-effectiveness
of roads.
> VMT has outstripped capacity, especially in fast-growing major
> metropolitan areas. Fix the capacity, if DC had added capacity at the
> rate it added VMT it would not have a traffic problem.
you're saying people are driving futher because there are not enough roads?
hmmm.. let's talk about this.
> I'm perfectly willing to privatize roads and transit.
> Would you?
you didn't ask me but I'll answer. Yes. I'd be comfortable with the
market economy produces roads..tied to users.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> angst...@aol.comeon.com (Jon Morse) wrote:
> >
> > There's a reason for that. Some people might do well to figure out what that
> > reason is.
>
> People who object on a project-specific basis with solid reasons,
> typically receive the "polite and constructive" disagreement that Jon
> mentions.
I must modify that statement. :-)
"People who object on a project-specific basis with solid reasons, if
someone else here disagrees with their assessment, typically only offers
SPUI
David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jmum9scvvni72a11j...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:59:23 -0500, in misc.transport.road
> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote in <389B67DB...@pobox.com>:
>
> >
> >
> >David Jensen wrote:
> >
> >> Funny how the anti-road forces have to resort to the courts so often to
> >> undermine democracy and stop the construction of roads.
> >
> >just curious.. how many court actions are there with respect to roads
> >nationwide? 10.. 20.. 300...? got a guess? There are _thousands_ of
> >road projects underway across the county.. what percentage of these
> >end up in court? 50%... 10%.. .01% ???
>
> this is about democracy, going to court is anti-democratic. As for the
> projects that go to court, it's more often the quality than the
> quantity.
How is it anti-democratic? The court system is a major part of checks and
balances.
Robert Cote
Great, ask the question and then slap on a
few insults and pre-accusations of handwaving.
Ask nicely and I will answer. You should know
by now that I don't say these kinds of things
till I am sure.
David Jensen
Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote in <389B67DB...@pobox.com>:
>
>
>David Jensen wrote:
>
>> Funny how the anti-road forces have to resort to the courts so often to
>> undermine democracy and stop the construction of roads.
>
>just curious.. how many court actions are there with respect to roads
>nationwide? 10.. 20.. 300...? got a guess? There are _thousands_ of
>road projects underway across the county.. what percentage of these
>end up in court? 50%... 10%.. .01% ???
No, I'm not saying that. I'm merely saying that if you are arguing that
this is about democracy, going to court is anti-democratic. As for the
projects that go to court, it's more often the quality than the
quantity.
>> Why should capacity not grow at the same rate as VMT? Every other
>> service grows to support the demands of the customers. Roads need to do
>> the same if we really care about meeting the desires and needs of the
>> customers--drivers.
>
>because.. when VMT increases.. capacity is REDUCED... VMT
>essentially makes roads less effective..thus reguires more roads
>and more money for roads. VMT undercuts the cost-effectiveness
>of roads.
No, capacity remains the same. VMT is an increase in demand. This
increase in demand causes a need for more roads. This is not WWII and we
do not need dogooders telling us how much we can drive.
Would you like me to be telling you that you are living on too much land
and must give it up for a government sponsored mobile home court. If you
don't think that the government should tell you how much land you can
have, why do you want the government to tell people how many miles they
can drive?
>> VMT has outstripped capacity, especially in fast-growing major
>> metropolitan areas. Fix the capacity, if DC had added capacity at the
>> rate it added VMT it would not have a traffic problem.
>
>you're saying people are driving futher because there are not enough roads?
>hmmm.. let's talk about this.
Nope. I'm not claiming that the metro area would be smaller, I'm
claiming that with adequate roads, the traffic problem would be far more
tolerable.
>> I'm perfectly willing to privatize roads and transit.
>> Would you?
>
>you didn't ask me but I'll answer. Yes. I'd be comfortable with the
>market economy produces roads..tied to users.
Okay.
David Jensen
"SPUI" <d...@moraseskiREMOVE.com> wrote in <nHLm4.2754$O23.2623@client>:
>
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:jmum9scvvni72a11j...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:59:23 -0500, in misc.transport.road
>> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote in <389B67DB...@pobox.com>:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >David Jensen wrote:
>> >
>> >> Funny how the anti-road forces have to resort to the courts so often to
>> >> undermine democracy and stop the construction of roads.
>> >
>> >just curious.. how many court actions are there with respect to roads
>> >nationwide? 10.. 20.. 300...? got a guess? There are _thousands_ of
>> >road projects underway across the county.. what percentage of these
>> >end up in court? 50%... 10%.. .01% ???
>>
>> No, I'm not saying that. I'm merely saying that if you are arguing that
>> this is about democracy, going to court is anti-democratic. As for the
>> projects that go to court, it's more often the quality than the
>> quantity.
>
>How is it anti-democratic? The court system is a major part of checks and
>balances.
>
That is why it is antidemocratic. A more purely democratic form would
allow the legislative assembly to do whatever it wants, say abolish one
of the houses of the legislature, with no recourse from those who oppose
the abolition. Our government was set up not to be a democracy, given to
the whims of the majority, tempered only by respect for the past, but
merely a more perfect union which allowed the elected representatives to
make small changes by majority, but serious effort for any real change.
It doesn't always work. If we had had a plebiscite on the wisdom of the
Dred Scott case, I expect that the abolitionists would have won. In a
real democracy, we might not have fought the Civil War, but in a real
democracy, we might have decided that the states of the confederacy had
the right to seceed. The only reason slavery lasted as long as it did in
the US is because the free states could not force the issue as a
democracy would have allowed.
Despite that horrible weakness, I still admire what the founding fathers
put together. Might there be something better? Sure, in theory, but like
Ross's quest for a perfect way to pay for roads, it doesn't make sense
to undermine the imperfect one before a more perfect one is established.
Larry Gross
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> > angst...@aol.comeon.com (Jon Morse) wrote:
> > >
> > > There's a reason for that. Some people might do well to figure out what that
> > > reason is.
> >
> > People who object on a project-specific basis with solid reasons,
> > typically receive the "polite and constructive" disagreement that Jon
> > mentions.
>
> I must modify that statement. :-)
>
> "People who object on a project-specific basis with solid reasons, if
> someone else here disagrees with their assessment, typically only offers
> the 'polite and constructive' disagreement that Jon mentions".
the 'solid reasons' being the stuff of relentless debate....
Larry Gross
Robert Cote wrote:
Ok. I'm asking nicely. Could you expand and
explain on the reasons for why you believe this
to be true?
Larry Gross
Robert Cote wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, in direct proportion to the economy ....
> >
> > if you can back this up with data..
>
> Ask nicely and I will answer. You should know
> by now that I don't say these kinds of things
> till I am sure.
here's a start:
http://www.energy.cted.wa.gov/FILES/PRFL/docs/key09/k09page.htm
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have increased rapidly and steadily since
1970. Total VMT has increased
more than two percent in each year except 1974, 1980 and 1993. On a per
capita basis, VMT grew by
more than 50 percent between 1970 and 1993, from nearly 6,000 to over
9,000 miles per Washington
resident. Highway vehicle fuel efficiency has not kept up. From a low of
11.4 miles per gallon (mpg) in
1976, fuel efficiency has increased at 2.2 percent per year to 16.6 mpg
in 1993.
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:59:23 -0500, in misc.transport.road
> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote in <389B67DB...@pobox.com>:
>
> >
> >
> >David Jensen wrote:
> >
> >> Funny how the anti-road forces have to resort to the courts so often to
> >> undermine democracy and stop the construction of roads.
> >
> >just curious.. how many court actions are there with respect to roads
> >nationwide? 10.. 20.. 300...? got a guess? There are _thousands_ of
> >road projects underway across the county.. what percentage of these
> >end up in court? 50%... 10%.. .01% ???
>
> No, I'm not saying that. I'm merely saying that if you are arguing that
> this is about democracy, going to court is anti-democratic. As for the
> projects that go to court, it's more often the quality than the
> quantity.
David..think about what you are saying. You're saying that if citizens
believe that the govt is not following it's own rules..the law - in making
decisions that it is 'anti-democratic' to allow the citizens to seek
redress. Do you know that the EPA has been sued in court as many
times for NOT enforcing the law as many times as they have been
sued for 'overstepping' their authority? Being able to legally question
govt decisions is part and parcel of a successful democracy. Its'
what sets this country apart from countries that don't allow this.
What good does it do to elect representatives if after they're in
office they choose to flaunt the laws of the land?
>
> >> Why should capacity not grow at the same rate as VMT? Every other
> >> service grows to support the demands of the customers. Roads need to do
> >> the same if we really care about meeting the desires and needs of the
> >> customers--drivers.
> >
> >because.. when VMT increases.. capacity is REDUCED... VMT
> >essentially makes roads less effective..thus reguires more roads
> >and more money for roads. VMT undercuts the cost-effectiveness
> >of roads.
>
> No, capacity remains the same. VMT is an increase in demand. This
> increase in demand causes a need for more roads. This is not WWII and we
> do not need dogooders telling us how much we can drive.
it's not about making value judgements of whether we drive too much.
It's about recognizing what this does to our system of providing
additional capacity with the same amount of funding. It's about
cost-effectiveness.. funding.. and in turn.. being aware that VMT
actually results in essentially less funding because the funding no
longer produces the same amount of congestion relief as it used to.
>
> Would you like me to be telling you that you are living on too much land
> and must give it up for a government sponsored mobile home court. If you
> don't think that the government should tell you how much land you can
> have, why do you want the government to tell people how many miles they
> can drive?
I don't. I think 1. - each person should pay for what they use. 2. all of
us should recognize what the true costs really are. It's like buying a
cheap car and then realizing that it's far more expensive to repair than
a car that maybe cost more initially but is cheaper to maintain. It's
about recognizing that out of a lot of choices.. some of those choices
may be far more expensive than other choices. It's like buying the
'economy' size of something and then discovering that the cost per
unit is actually higher than the non-economy size. BTW... you
didn't have this choice until the govt forced all food retailers to
make this information available to you at the point of sale so you
can compare.. and make cost-effective decisions. We don't do
this with roads right now. We assume that they are all equally
cost-effective and that they are all the 'best' cost-effective that
they can be. In reality.. they are not but we don't even know
that because the metrics for allowing such comparisons are
not provided. We don't know which roads..or what kinds
of roads give us the most bang for the buck.. we just build
them one after another assuming that they will 'fix' the problem
when the reality is otherwise. It's like buying more and more
gasoline for a car that is not fuel-efficient in the hopes that
if you buy enough gasoline it will become so.
> >> VMT has outstripped capacity, especially in fast-growing major
> >> metropolitan areas. Fix the capacity, if DC had added capacity at the
> >> rate it added VMT it would not have a traffic problem.
> >
> >you're saying people are driving futher because there are not enough roads?
> >hmmm.. let's talk about this.
>
> Nope. I'm not claiming that the metro area would be smaller, I'm
> claiming that with adequate roads, the traffic problem would be far more
> tolerable.
IF you accept the theory that building more roads is indeed cost-effective.
If you don't know this how can you be sure? At the least.. folks should
recognize that increasing VMT means less roads for the money. If
VMT keeps going up.. it means less and less bang for the buck.
Unless of course..you believe that at some point VMT will be reduced
as a result of building more roads.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > "People who object on a project-specific basis with solid reasons, if
> > someone else here disagrees with their assessment, typically only offers
> > the 'polite and constructive' disagreement that Jon mentions".
>
> the 'solid reasons' being the stuff of relentless debate....
Actually, Larry, the "project-specific basis" was my more important
point.
The opposite being painting a set of broad sweeping generalizations
against all projects.
David Jensen
Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote in <389BF8AF...@pobox.com>:
>David..think about what you are saying. You're saying that if citizens
>believe that the govt is not following it's own rules..the law - in making
>decisions that it is 'anti-democratic' to allow the citizens to seek
>redress. Do you know that the EPA has been sued in court as many
>times for NOT enforcing the law as many times as they have been
>sued for 'overstepping' their authority? Being able to legally question
>govt decisions is part and parcel of a successful democracy. Its'
>what sets this country apart from countries that don't allow this.
>What good does it do to elect representatives if after they're in
>office they choose to flaunt the laws of the land?
While I don't object to the courts reviewing decisions of legislatures
and bureaucrats alike, this is not democratic, it is part of our
successful government, however. In a more pure democracy, the actions of
the legislature would be legal by definition and bureaucrats would never
be allowed to promulgate rules.
...
>> No, capacity remains the same. VMT is an increase in demand. This
>> increase in demand causes a need for more roads. This is not WWII and we
>> do not need dogooders telling us how much we can drive.
>
>it's not about making value judgements of whether we drive too much.
>It's about recognizing what this does to our system of providing
>additional capacity with the same amount of funding. It's about
>cost-effectiveness.. funding.. and in turn.. being aware that VMT
>actually results in essentially less funding because the funding no
>longer produces the same amount of congestion relief as it used to.
No, it should not be about cost effectiveness. It should be about
following the customer's wishes if they wish to pay for it.
>> Would you like me to be telling you that you are living on too much land
>> and must give it up for a government sponsored mobile home court. If you
>> don't think that the government should tell you how much land you can
>> have, why do you want the government to tell people how many miles they
>> can drive?
>
>I don't. I think 1. - each person should pay for what they use. 2. all of
>us should recognize what the true costs really are. It's like buying a
>cheap car and then realizing that it's far more expensive to repair than
>a car that maybe cost more initially but is cheaper to maintain. It's
>about recognizing that out of a lot of choices.. some of those choices
>may be far more expensive than other choices. It's like buying the
>'economy' size of something and then discovering that the cost per
I agree with these points.
>unit is actually higher than the non-economy size. BTW... you
>didn't have this choice until the govt forced all food retailers to
>make this information available to you at the point of sale so you
>can compare.. and make cost-effective decisions. We don't do
Odd, around here it was the retailers who used comparative pricing as a
marketing tool in the begining.
>this with roads right now. We assume that they are all equally
>cost-effective and that they are all the 'best' cost-effective that
>they can be. In reality.. they are not but we don't even know
>that because the metrics for allowing such comparisons are
>not provided. We don't know which roads..or what kinds
>of roads give us the most bang for the buck.. we just build
>them one after another assuming that they will 'fix' the problem
>when the reality is otherwise. It's like buying more and more
>gasoline for a car that is not fuel-efficient in the hopes that
>if you buy enough gasoline it will become so.
No, I think people understand the cost. Drivers have shown that they are
willing to pay it. People buy SUVs every day knowing that they are
inefficent and will only be used as expensive minivans. The hundred
billion dollar cost of roads for our 150 million drivers is small part
of driving. This cost would have to increase significantly to deter VMT
growth.
>> >> VMT has outstripped capacity, especially in fast-growing major
>> >> metropolitan areas. Fix the capacity, if DC had added capacity at the
>> >> rate it added VMT it would not have a traffic problem.
>> >
>> >you're saying people are driving futher because there are not enough roads?
>> >hmmm.. let's talk about this.
>>
>> Nope. I'm not claiming that the metro area would be smaller, I'm
>> claiming that with adequate roads, the traffic problem would be far more
>> tolerable.
>
>IF you accept the theory that building more roads is indeed cost-effective.
>If you don't know this how can you be sure? At the least.. folks should
>recognize that increasing VMT means less roads for the money. If
>VMT keeps going up.. it means less and less bang for the buck.
>Unless of course..you believe that at some point VMT will be reduced
>as a result of building more roads.
I don't claim it's cost effective. I claim that this is the decision
people have made with their pocketbook.
Increasing VMT is a demand component. If we keep road receipts
increasing at the inflation-adjusted rate of VMT we will have enough
revenue to keep the roads working well.
Bob Johnson
wrote:
>closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
>but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
>having health problems? Is this really what we want to do?
False premise, false conclusion.
Bob Johnson
Robert Cote
> Robert Cote wrote:
>
> > In article <389B661F...@pobox.com>, lgr...@pobox.com wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Cote wrote:
> > >
> > > > > We have been
> > > > > adding VMT faster than population
> > > >
> > > > Yes, in direct proportion to the economy ....
> > >
> > > if you can back this up with data.. say.. a chart
> > > that shows economic growth in lock step with VMT..
> > > you've got something worth looking at. otherwise..
> > > ... handwaving....
> > >
> > Great, ask the question and then slap on a
> > few insults and pre-accusations of handwaving.
> >
> > Ask nicely and I will answer. You should know
> > by now that I don't say these kinds of things
> > till I am sure.
>
> Ok. I'm asking nicely. Could you expand and
> explain on the reasons for why you believe this
> to be true?
Done. See the Wash Post Gridlock thread reply.
John Lansford
>
>
>>David Jensen wrote:
>> Would you like me to be telling you that you are living on too much land
>> and must give it up for a government sponsored mobile home court. If you
>> don't think that the government should tell you how much land you can
>> have, why do you want the government to tell people how many miles they
>> can drive?
>
>I don't. I think 1. - each person should pay for what they use.
They do. Scott has covered this quite well, I think.
> 2. all of us should recognize what the true costs really are.
And I suppose you want "all of us" to "pay for what the true costs
really are" as well?
Since a lot of what you've been complaining about are subjective
issues (quality of life, environmental damage, noise pollution, etc),
how would these "costs" be applied?
> We assume that they are all equally
>cost-effective and that they are all the 'best' cost-effective that
>they can be.
Compared to the alternatives, I'd say that most of the time this is
accurate.
> In reality.. they are not but we don't even know
>that because the metrics for allowing such comparisons are
>not provided. We don't know which roads..or what kinds
>of roads give us the most bang for the buck..
Sure we do. Freeways are best for moving traffic from Point A to Point
B. Surface roads are best for providing access to property. This isn't
even open for debate.
> we just build
>them one after another assuming that they will 'fix' the problem
>when the reality is otherwise. It's like buying more and more
>gasoline for a car that is not fuel-efficient in the hopes that
>if you buy enough gasoline it will become so.
Well, you are certainly not short of similes today, are you?
>> Nope. I'm not claiming that the metro area would be smaller, I'm
>> claiming that with adequate roads, the traffic problem would be far more
>> tolerable.
>
>IF you accept the theory that building more roads is indeed cost-effective.
In conjunction with responsible land use and planning decisions. Why
is it small and medium sized towns don't have transportation problems
(without anything but the most rudimentary transit systems, either)
but larger cities do?
>If you don't know this how can you be sure? At the least.. folks should
>recognize that increasing VMT means less roads for the money. If
>VMT keeps going up.. it means less and less bang for the buck.
>Unless of course..you believe that at some point VMT will be reduced
>as a result of building more roads.
It could, but it would be expensive.
John Lansford, PE
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Ross Williams
wrote:
>What good does it do to elect representatives if after they're in
>office they choose to flaunt the laws of the land?
Or what good does it do to have your elected representatives pass laws
if the agencies responsible for enforcing them don't.
Ross Williams
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>Sure, in theory, but like Ross's quest for a perfect way to pay for roads,
I think you misunderstand - I don't have any problem with paying for
roads through taxes. I do have a problem with people claiming that
this somehow creates an entitlement to a fast, convenient 20 mile
commute through other people's communities. Or that deciding to spend
those tax dollars elsewhere is somehow illigitmate. Or that it
introduces some sort of self-limiting market economics to decisions to
build roads.
Ross Williams
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>
>> > "People who object on a project-specific basis with solid reasons, if
>> > someone else here disagrees with their assessment, typically only offers
>> > the 'polite and constructive' disagreement that Jon mentions".
>>
>> the 'solid reasons' being the stuff of relentless debate....
>
>Actually, Larry, the "project-specific basis" was my more important
>point.
>
>The opposite being painting a set of broad sweeping generalizations
>against all projects.
Why would a specific project in Northern Virginia be of more interest
to people around the world than the likely impact of building new
roads.
Is the London experience of actually increasing throughput without new
lanes by reducing speeds irrelevant to decisions about what might
reduce congestion in Washington DC?
Is the fact that time savings from reducing congestion leads to
increased travel length irrelevant to determining whether a specific
project should be built?
Are the long term impacts of new constrution on land uses irrelevant
to evaluating whether a project actually makes the community better?
Is suggesting that adding new road capcity will generally not relieve
congestion and that the burden of proof should be on those who claim
it will somehow irrelevant to the debate.
Is suggesting that road projects should have to competer with other
public priorities for tax dollars - rather than with one another -
irrelevant to the public debate on whether to build a new road.
Finally is it really the place any member of this group to decide what
is worthy of discussion by other members and to interrupt and
sidetrack that discussion with off-topic posts about other
participants. If you want to have a discussion on what is appropriate
newsgroup discussions, start your own thread and stop interrupting
every other topic with your opinions on this one.
Larry Gross
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> > > "People who object on a project-specific basis with solid reasons, if
> > > someone else here disagrees with their assessment, typically only offers
> > > the 'polite and constructive' disagreement that Jon mentions".
> >
> > the 'solid reasons' being the stuff of relentless debate....
>
> Actually, Larry, the "project-specific basis" was my more important
> point.
>
> The opposite being painting a set of broad sweeping generalizations
> against all projects.
yup.. tis one of the things that I've been called on by you guys sometimes
so I try to be more on target now with specifics.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>David Jensen wrote:
>
>>> Would you like me to be telling you that you are living on too much land
>>> and must give it up for a government sponsored mobile home court. If you
>>> don't think that the government should tell you how much land you can
>>> have, why do you want the government to tell people how many miles they
>>> can drive?
>>
>>I don't. I think 1. - each person should pay for what they use.
>
>They do. Scott has covered this quite well, I think.
Its a little like going to a restaurant with a group of people and
agreeing in advance to split the bill evenly. On person chooses to
have a salad and another the steak and lobster. Sure the "diners" pay
for the meal - but the person eating the lobster didn't pay the cost
of it. And of course Scott's numbers wouldn't even support that, only
that the diners pay most of the cost - if you don't include the tip.
I suppose you could do an analysis of any project in terms of whether
the additional gas tax paid by drivers on a stretch of pavement will
pay the full cost of that pavement. I wonder how many projects would
be built under those constraints. Certainly most bridges would never
get built.
I am not suggesting this is a good idea - but it would come close to
meeting the standard of each person paying for what they use.
>
>> 2. all of us should recognize what the true costs really are.
>
>And I suppose you want "all of us" to "pay for what the true costs
>really are" as well?
>
>Since a lot of what you've been complaining about are subjective
>issues (quality of life, environmental damage, noise pollution, etc),
>how would these "costs" be applied?
By deciding whether to build a project. The fact is you can't transfer
the health effects of air pollution from the people who live in a
community to the drivers. So its not an economic question - its a
value question. Which is more important knocking 10 minutes off
someone's commute or preventing children from getting asthma.
>
>> We assume that they are all equally
>>cost-effective and that they are all the 'best' cost-effective that
>>they can be.
>
>Compared to the alternatives, I'd say that most of the time this is
>accurate.
>
>> In reality.. they are not but we don't even know
>>that because the metrics for allowing such comparisons are
>>not provided. We don't know which roads..or what kinds
>>of roads give us the most bang for the buck..
>
>Sure we do. Freeways are best for moving traffic from Point A to Point
>B.
If suppose if one does not care about the impact on Point A, Point B
or anything in between. And that seems to be the motto of road
builders. Freeways are about the worst way to move traffic in almost
every urban situation. They divide communities, create traffic, force
congestion onto the roads that provide the "limited access" and
encourage people to drive long distances. The increase air pollution
and they force people to use their automobile for almost every trip.
>Surface roads are best for providing access to property. This isn't
>even open for debate.
This is why we have the mess we do. Engineers ahve decided all those
other values are irrelevant to moving traffic.
>
>> we just build
>>them one after another assuming that they will 'fix' the problem
>>when the reality is otherwise. It's like buying more and more
>>gasoline for a car that is not fuel-efficient in the hopes that
>>if you buy enough gasoline it will become so.
>
>Well, you are certainly not short of similes today, are you?
>
>>> Nope. I'm not claiming that the metro area would be smaller, I'm
>>> claiming that with adequate roads, the traffic problem would be far more
>>> tolerable.
>>
>>IF you accept the theory that building more roads is indeed cost-effective.
>
>In conjunction with responsible land use and planning decisions. Why
>is it small and medium sized towns don't have transportation problems
>(without anything but the most rudimentary transit systems, either)
>but larger cities do?
This isn't true in Oregon or Minnesota or Florida. I doubt it is true
in Virginia.
>
>>If you don't know this how can you be sure? At the least.. folks should
>>recognize that increasing VMT means less roads for the money. If
>>VMT keeps going up.. it means less and less bang for the buck.
>>Unless of course..you believe that at some point VMT will be reduced
>>as a result of building more roads.
>
Larry Gross
Bob Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:48:23 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
> >closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
> >but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
> >having health problems? Is this really what we want to do?
>
> False premise, false conclusion.
IOW more roads don't mean worse air quality?
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 05:17:19 -0500, in misc.transport.road
> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote in <389BF8AF...@pobox.com>:
>
> >David..think about what you are saying. You're saying that if citizens
> >believe that the govt is not following it's own rules..the law - in making
> >decisions that it is 'anti-democratic' to allow the citizens to seek
> >redress. Do you know that the EPA has been sued in court as many
> >times for NOT enforcing the law as many times as they have been
> >sued for 'overstepping' their authority? Being able to legally question
> >govt decisions is part and parcel of a successful democracy. Its'
> >what sets this country apart from countries that don't allow this.
> >What good does it do to elect representatives if after they're in
> >office they choose to flaunt the laws of the land?
>
> While I don't object to the courts reviewing decisions of legislatures
> and bureaucrats alike, this is not democratic, it is part of our
> successful government, however. In a more pure democracy, the actions of
> the legislature would be legal by definition and bureaucrats would never
> be allowed to promulgate rules.
okay.. so you're saying that the law should include the regulation.. not
just the legislation. I _think_ this goes back to the 3 parts of the govt.
executive/legislative/legal where none of them control the process.
the executive part implements legislation and the courts decide if
legislation and regulations are legal.. etc.. Not sure what happens if
you take the legal out of it.
>
> >> No, capacity remains the same. VMT is an increase in demand. This
> >> increase in demand causes a need for more roads. This is not WWII and we
> >> do not need dogooders telling us how much we can drive.
> >
> >it's not about making value judgements of whether we drive too much.
> >It's about recognizing what this does to our system of providing
> >additional capacity with the same amount of funding. It's about
> >cost-effectiveness.. funding.. and in turn.. being aware that VMT
> >actually results in essentially less funding because the funding no
> >longer produces the same amount of congestion relief as it used to.
>
> No, it should not be about cost effectiveness. It should be about
> following the customer's wishes if they wish to pay for it.
I'd agree with you if we payed per use but when everyone pays into
one fund and then 'uses' what they think is fair..we know how that
works. Health Insurance plans know about that big time. It's like
a 'all you can eat' buffet instead of paying ala carte.
> >> Would you like me to be telling you that you are living on too much land
> >> and must give it up for a government sponsored mobile home court. If you
> >> don't think that the government should tell you how much land you can
> >> have, why do you want the government to tell people how many miles they
> >> can drive?
> >
> >I don't. I think 1. - each person should pay for what they use. 2. all of
> >us should recognize what the true costs really are. It's like buying a
> >cheap car and then realizing that it's far more expensive to repair than
> >a car that maybe cost more initially but is cheaper to maintain. It's
> >about recognizing that out of a lot of choices.. some of those choices
> >may be far more expensive than other choices. It's like buying the
> >'economy' size of something and then discovering that the cost per
>
> I agree with these points.
>
> >unit is actually higher than the non-economy size. BTW... you
> >didn't have this choice until the govt forced all food retailers to
> >make this information available to you at the point of sale so you
> >can compare.. and make cost-effective decisions. We don't do
>
> Odd, around here it was the retailers who used comparative pricing as a
> marketing tool in the begining.
yes.. agree.. perhaps was thinking more about nutrition labels. Same
difference.. knowing how much you are paying and what you are getting.
> >this with roads right now. We assume that they are all equally
> >cost-effective and that they are all the 'best' cost-effective that
> >they can be. In reality.. they are not but we don't even know
> >that because the metrics for allowing such comparisons are
> >not provided. We don't know which roads..or what kinds
> >of roads give us the most bang for the buck.. we just build
> >them one after another assuming that they will 'fix' the problem
> >when the reality is otherwise. It's like buying more and more
> >gasoline for a car that is not fuel-efficient in the hopes that
> >if you buy enough gasoline it will become so.
>
> No, I think people understand the cost. Drivers have shown that they are
> willing to pay it. People buy SUVs every day knowing that they are
> inefficent and will only be used as expensive minivans. The hundred
> billion dollar cost of roads for our 150 million drivers is small part
> of driving. This cost would have to increase significantly to deter VMT
> growth.
The web link I provided in other posts has an interesting chart that compares
VMT with gasoline prices. There IS an effect. The price of a barrel of oil
has doubled in the last two months. I wonder if gas was $2 .. or $3 what
effect that might have on VMT.
>
> >> >> VMT has outstripped capacity, especially in fast-growing major
> >> >> metropolitan areas. Fix the capacity, if DC had added capacity at the
> >> >> rate it added VMT it would not have a traffic problem.
> >> >
> >> >you're saying people are driving futher because there are not enough roads?
> >> >hmmm.. let's talk about this.
> >>
> >> Nope. I'm not claiming that the metro area would be smaller, I'm
> >> claiming that with adequate roads, the traffic problem would be far more
> >> tolerable.
> >
> >IF you accept the theory that building more roads is indeed cost-effective.
> >If you don't know this how can you be sure? At the least.. folks should
> >recognize that increasing VMT means less roads for the money. If
> >VMT keeps going up.. it means less and less bang for the buck.
> >Unless of course..you believe that at some point VMT will be reduced
> >as a result of building more roads.
>
> I don't claim it's cost effective. I claim that this is the decision
> people have made with their pocketbook.
agree.
>
> Increasing VMT is a demand component. If we keep road receipts
> increasing at the inflation-adjusted rate of VMT we will have enough
> revenue to keep the roads working well.
check out that VMT web link.. they also compare VMT with fuel
efficiency. Right now fuel efficiency has increased and gas receipts
do not bring in enough to pay for increased VMT.
Larry Gross
John Lansford wrote:
> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>David Jensen wrote:
>
> >> Would you like me to be telling you that you are living on too much land
> >> and must give it up for a government sponsored mobile home court. If you
> >> don't think that the government should tell you how much land you can
> >> have, why do you want the government to tell people how many miles they
> >> can drive?
> >
> >I don't. I think 1. - each person should pay for what they use.
>
> They do. Scott has covered this quite well, I think.
he has. we don't agree. It's like people paying premiums into
a health care plan then filing as many claims as they can so
they can make sure they get their share..pretty soon premiums
go up and the cycle starts again.
>
> > 2. all of us should recognize what the true costs really are.
>
> And I suppose you want "all of us" to "pay for what the true costs
> really are" as well?
on a per person usage basis - yes.
>
> Since a lot of what you've been complaining about are subjective
> issues (quality of life, environmental damage, noise pollution, etc),
> how would these "costs" be applied?
I'm willing to save that part for later.. let's just do it on a pure
objective basis. toll roads are fair in my opinion. Set the toll
to pay for the construction and maintenance of the road.
On the externalities.. unless we can quanitfy the costs..then I'd
be against trying to include them.
> > We assume that they are all equally
> >cost-effective and that they are all the 'best' cost-effective that
> >they can be.
>
> Compared to the alternatives, I'd say that most of the time this is
> accurate.
they DO give costs and projected LOS for each alternative in EISs.
> > In reality.. they are not but we don't even know
> >that because the metrics for allowing such comparisons are
> >not provided. We don't know which roads..or what kinds
> >of roads give us the most bang for the buck..
>
> Sure we do. Freeways are best for moving traffic from Point A to Point
> B. Surface roads are best for providing access to property. This isn't
> even open for debate.
numbers please? just from your own experience.. ballpark...
> > we just build
> >them one after another assuming that they will 'fix' the problem
> >when the reality is otherwise. It's like buying more and more
> >gasoline for a car that is not fuel-efficient in the hopes that
> >if you buy enough gasoline it will become so.
>
> Well, you are certainly not short of similes today, are you?
yeah.. I through that one in for those that appreciate them. :-)
>
>
> >> Nope. I'm not claiming that the metro area would be smaller, I'm
> >> claiming that with adequate roads, the traffic problem would be far more
> >> tolerable.
> >
> >IF you accept the theory that building more roads is indeed cost-effective.
>
> In conjunction with responsible land use and planning decisions. Why
> is it small and medium sized towns don't have transportation problems
> (without anything but the most rudimentary transit systems, either)
> but larger cities do?
thats an easy question and a hard answer.
> >If you don't know this how can you be sure? At the least.. folks should
> >recognize that increasing VMT means less roads for the money. If
> >VMT keeps going up.. it means less and less bang for the buck.
> >Unless of course..you believe that at some point VMT will be reduced
> >as a result of building more roads.
>
> It could, but it would be expensive.
had to read the last sentence a few times and realized that it has
several potential meanings.. so then I thought I'd take it at face
value and go fo it. Is there an 'optimal' VMT with respect to
road contstruction costs? in your own mind.. or in literature?
David Jensen
You don't like the highway trust fund?
David Jensen
Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote in <389CA4CB...@pobox.com>:
Correct.
John Lansford
>On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:10:51 -0500, John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net>
>wrote:
>>They do. Scott has covered this quite well, I think.
>
>Its a little like going to a restaurant with a group of people and
>agreeing in advance to split the bill evenly. On person chooses to
>have a salad and another the steak and lobster. Sure the "diners" pay
>for the meal - but the person eating the lobster didn't pay the cost
>of it. And of course Scott's numbers wouldn't even support that, only
>that the diners pay most of the cost - if you don't include the tip.
>
>I suppose you could do an analysis of any project in terms of whether
>the additional gas tax paid by drivers on a stretch of pavement will
>pay the full cost of that pavement. I wonder how many projects would
>be built under those constraints. Certainly most bridges would never
>get built.
So we end up with crumbling infrastructure, narrow roads (especially
in rural and mountainous areas), high pollution and rising death rates
on unsafe roads.
All because "this project doesn't carry enough cars to pay for it".
>I am not suggesting this is a good idea -
From your previous posts, it certainly seems like it.
> but it would come close to
>meeting the standard of each person paying for what they use.
So, if a bridge project required $1 million to replace a worn out
bridge, and it carried, say, 4000 vehicles today, how would you charge
them for the "use" of this structure over its life?
In fact, let's use one of my projects, OK? A real world example and
see if this could work:
B-3077 is a bridge project on a rural road north of N. Wilkesboro in
Wilkes County, NC. The old bridge is obsolete and in a terrible
alignment (two short reverse curves on each end of a narrow bridge).
The cost to replace it is estimated to run about $900,000. The
existing traffic is around 800 vpd but expected to grow to 1000 vpd
twenty years from now.
The bridge is designed to last at least 50 years, probably more.
Now, if I assume an average of 900 vpd over the life of the study
time, and every one of them use that bridge every day (not likely but
let's do it this way for simplicity's sake), then you've got:
900 x 365 days x 20 years = 6,570,000 trips across the bridge.
Dividing the cost ($900,000) by the total trips gets you a charge of
$0.14 per trip across the bridge to pay for it.
The cost of collection would probably be higher than the user charge.
Talk about wasting money!!
And that's just one little bridge replacement project. Think of the
bureaucracy that would spring up if ALL projects were handled that
way, not to mention the absolute hatred of drivers forced to stop
every few miles and hand over some change.
>>Since a lot of what you've been complaining about are subjective
>>issues (quality of life, environmental damage, noise pollution, etc),
>>how would these "costs" be applied?
>
>By deciding whether to build a project.
Which already takes place. Thanks for agreeing with the current
process.
>The fact is you can't transfer
>the health effects of air pollution from the people who live in a
>community to the drivers.
Most drivers are on the interstate system less than 20 miles. It's
their air too.
> So its not an economic question - its a
>value question. Which is more important knocking 10 minutes off
>someone's commute or preventing children from getting asthma.
Congested vehicles create more pollution than free flowing ones.
>>Sure we do. Freeways are best for moving traffic from Point A to Point
>>B.
>
>If suppose if one does not care about the impact on Point A, Point B
>or anything in between. And that seems to be the motto of road
>builders.
OUCH!! I'm so wounded.
Fact is, Ross, there are a whole lot of agencies and organizations
that have to sign off on highway projects before they get built. Go
look at the signatories of a major EIS and you'll figure that out.
> Freeways are about the worst way to move traffic in almost
>every urban situation.
Ross, you saying so doesn't make it so.
I suppose compared to Star Trek teleporters they lose out, but do you
have another alternative that is better than "the worst way to move
traffic in almost every urban situation"?
> They divide communities,
EIS requires community participation and agreement.
> create traffic,
Hogwash. Local governments being greedy do this.
> force
>congestion onto the roads that provide the "limited access"
"force"?? Interchanges provide access to major crossroads, which are
most likely designed to handle the traffic. Or would you like the
120,000 vpd on I-40 heading to RTP to take less capable collector and
local routes?
> and
>encourage people to drive long distances.
Providing them the opportunity to get out of cities, raise families in
rural areas, and spread out away from their packed in neighbors in
urban areas. IOW, it gives them a CHOICE. You are against that.
> The increase air pollution
Actually they reduce it, by reducing congestion.
>and they force people to use their automobile for almost every trip.
And the alternatives limit their choices, employment and housing
opportunities.
Typical anti-car rhetoric.
>>Surface roads are best for providing access to property. This isn't
>>even open for debate.
>
>This is why we have the mess we do. Engineers ahve decided all those
>other values are irrelevant to moving traffic.
The initial statement was "we don't know what road type is best for
moving traffic", Ross. I cleared up that false statement with two
sentences; the one about freeways and the one about local roads.
>>
>>In conjunction with responsible land use and planning decisions. Why
>>is it small and medium sized towns don't have transportation problems
>>(without anything but the most rudimentary transit systems, either)
>>but larger cities do?
>
>This isn't true in Oregon or Minnesota or Florida. I doubt it is true
>in Virginia.
What isn't true? By avoiding being specific, you make a meaningless
statement.
John Lansford
>
>
>Bob Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:48:23 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
>> >but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
>> >having health problems? Is this really what we want to do?
>>
>> False premise, false conclusion.
>
>IOW more roads don't mean worse air quality?
Less congestion equals less pollution. Improved/new roads reduce
congestion...
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
Ross, why do you keep asking so many questions when you only answer a
small portion of the ones asked you?
Ross Williams
wrote:
>Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:10:51 -0500, John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>They do. Scott has covered this quite well, I think.
>>
>>Its a little like going to a restaurant with a group of people and
>>agreeing in advance to split the bill evenly. On person chooses to
>>have a salad and another the steak and lobster. Sure the "diners" pay
>>for the meal - but the person eating the lobster didn't pay the cost
>>of it. And of course Scott's numbers wouldn't even support that, only
>>that the diners pay most of the cost - if you don't include the tip.
>>
>>I suppose you could do an analysis of any project in terms of whether
>>the additional gas tax paid by drivers on a stretch of pavement will
>>pay the full cost of that pavement. I wonder how many projects would
>>be built under those constraints. Certainly most bridges would never
>>get built.
>
>So we end up with crumbling infrastructure, narrow roads (especially
>in rural and mountainous areas), high pollution and rising death rates
>on unsafe roads.
>
>All because "this project doesn't carry enough cars to pay for it".
>
>>I am not suggesting this is a good idea -
>
>From your previous posts, it certainly seems like it.
Then you weren't paying attention - I have never proposed that roads
do pay for themselves or that they should.
>
>> but it would come close to
>>meeting the standard of each person paying for what they use.
>
>So, if a bridge project required $1 million to replace a worn out
>bridge, and it carried, say, 4000 vehicles today, how would you charge
>them for the "use" of this structure over its life?
I wouldn't. I'd replace the bridge assuming the conditions you
describe include all of the relevant considerations.
>
>In fact, let's use one of my projects, OK? A real world example and
>see if this could work:
>
>B-3077 is a bridge project on a rural road north of N. Wilkesboro in
>Wilkes County, NC. The old bridge is obsolete and in a terrible
>alignment (two short reverse curves on each end of a narrow bridge).
>The cost to replace it is estimated to run about $900,000. The
>existing traffic is around 800 vpd but expected to grow to 1000 vpd
>twenty years from now.
>
>The bridge is designed to last at least 50 years, probably more.
>
>Now, if I assume an average of 900 vpd over the life of the study
>time, and every one of them use that bridge every day (not likely but
>let's do it this way for simplicity's sake), then you've got:
>
>900 x 365 days x 20 years = 6,570,000 trips across the bridge.
>
>Dividing the cost ($900,000) by the total trips gets you a charge of
>$0.14 per trip across the bridge to pay for it.
>
>The cost of collection would probably be higher than the user charge.
>Talk about wasting money!!
I agree. A complete waste of money.
>
>And that's just one little bridge replacement project. Think of the
>bureaucracy that would spring up if ALL projects were handled that
>way, not to mention the absolute hatred of drivers forced to stop
>every few miles and hand over some change.
>
>>>Since a lot of what you've been complaining about are subjective
>>>issues (quality of life, environmental damage, noise pollution, etc),
>>>how would these "costs" be applied?
>>
>>By deciding whether to build a project.
>
>Which already takes place. Thanks for agreeing with the current
>process.
>
>>The fact is you can't transfer
>>the health effects of air pollution from the people who live in a
>>community to the drivers.
>
>Most drivers are on the interstate system less than 20 miles. It's
>their air too.
And you point is?
>
>> So its not an economic question - its a
>>value question. Which is more important knocking 10 minutes off
>>someone's commute or preventing children from getting asthma.
>
>Congested vehicles create more pollution than free flowing ones.
But that isn't the choice. One question is does 500 vehicles traveling
at 30 mph create more pollution than 1000 vehicles at 60 mph.
>
>>>Sure we do. Freeways are best for moving traffic from Point A to Point
>>>B.
>>
>>If suppose if one does not care about the impact on Point A, Point B
>>or anything in between. And that seems to be the motto of road
>>builders.
>
>OUCH!! I'm so wounded.
>
>Fact is, Ross, there are a whole lot of agencies and organizations
>that have to sign off on highway projects before they get built. Go
>look at the signatories of a major EIS and you'll figure that out.
And your point?
>
>> Freeways are about the worst way to move traffic in almost
>>every urban situation.
>
>Ross, you saying so doesn't make it so.
>
>I suppose compared to Star Trek teleporters they lose out, but do you
>have another alternative that is better than "the worst way to move
>traffic in almost every urban situation"?
A multi-modal boulevard is one alternative, another is to improve
transit and another is to create a complete street grid.
>
>> They divide communities,
>
>EIS requires community participation and agreement.
Not true, unless you define community as a particular jurisdiction. Do
local communities in North Carolina have the authority to close a
state highway running through town? They certainly don't in Oregon.
>
>> create traffic,
>
>Hogwash. Local governments being greedy do this.
>
>> force
>>congestion onto the roads that provide the "limited access"
>
>"force"?? Interchanges provide access to major crossroads, which are
>most likely designed to handle the traffic. Or would you like the
>120,000 vpd on I-40 heading to RTP to take less capable collector and
>local routes?
I want those trips on a *more* capable transportation system that
includes transit, pedestrians and bicycles.
You are ignoring the question of what creating a limited access
highway does to the connecting roads. Essentially it forces traffic to
a few choke points in order to facilitate people driving through the
community. When those roads fill up they "need" to be widened.
Suddenly you have a community diced up by wide roads with heavy
traffic. The only safe way to get around the community is to drive
your car and that just adds to the traffic congestion.
>
>> and
>>encourage people to drive long distances.
>
>Providing them the opportunity to get out of cities, raise families in
>rural areas, and spread out away from their packed in neighbors in
>urban areas. IOW, it gives them a CHOICE. You are against that.
Nope. I think people should have that choice. I think the people who
live between them and their jobs should have the choice of whether
their communities are going to be sacrificed so that other people can
commute 30 miles each day. THe real question is not whether people can
spread out - its what price do they have to pay for that decision.
Right now many of the costs are paid by people who get none of the
benefits.
>
>> The increase air pollution
>
>Actually they reduce it, by reducing congestion.
>
>>and they force people to use their automobile for almost every trip.
>
>And the alternatives limit their choices, employment and housing
>opportunities.
Life's alternatives are limited by all sorts of factors. I agree that
transportation is about providing people with more opportunities.
That's why I support light rail and transit - I think it provides
those opportunities but without the heavy social cost of roads and the
automobile. Its also why I think "fixing" congestion is the wrong
reason to add a new road. The question is what opportunities are you
providing, who are you providing them for and who pays the costs both
financial and social. We won't stop building roads when we ask those
questions, but they will be different roads that build and enhance
communities instead of destroying them.
>
>Typical anti-car rhetoric.
Or a typical response to auto-uber-alles. I use a car, I like to
drive, I'm not anti-auto.
>
>>>Surface roads are best for providing access to property. This isn't
>>>even open for debate.
>>
>>This is why we have the mess we do. Engineers ahve decided all those
>>other values are irrelevant to moving traffic.
>
>The initial statement was "we don't know what road type is best for
>moving traffic", Ross. I cleared up that false statement with two
>sentences; the one about freeways and the one about local roads.
I pulled it out of context then. My point stands.
>>>
>>>In conjunction with responsible land use and planning decisions. Why
>>>is it small and medium sized towns don't have transportation problems
>>>(without anything but the most rudimentary transit systems, either)
>>>but larger cities do?
>>
>>This isn't true in Oregon or Minnesota or Florida. I doubt it is true
>>in Virginia.
>
>What isn't true? By avoiding being specific, you make a meaningless
>statement.
Sorry. I meant that small and medium sized towns *do* have
transportation problems - usually traffic created by highways that run
through their main street.
John Lansford
>
>
>John Lansford wrote:
>> Sure we do. Freeways are best for moving traffic from Point A to Point
>> B. Surface roads are best for providing access to property. This isn't
>> even open for debate.
>
>numbers please? just from your own experience.. ballpark...
The Green Book has a better definition of arterials, collectors and
locals than I could ever give.
There aren't any numbers that would say "this should be a freeway,
this should not". It depends on lots of things, such as design speed,
length of travel, level of property access, and purpose & need.
>> In conjunction with responsible land use and planning decisions. Why
>> is it small and medium sized towns don't have transportation problems
>> (without anything but the most rudimentary transit systems, either)
>> but larger cities do?
>
>thats an easy question and a hard answer.
But a fair one, I think. Is it the amount of people in a given area?
The type of government (of course, cities typically all have the same
type, right?), "backroom politics", or what?
>> >If you don't know this how can you be sure? At the least.. folks should
>> >recognize that increasing VMT means less roads for the money. If
>> >VMT keeps going up.. it means less and less bang for the buck.
>> >Unless of course..you believe that at some point VMT will be reduced
>> >as a result of building more roads.
>>
>> It could, but it would be expensive.
>
>had to read the last sentence a few times and realized that it has
>several potential meanings.. so then I thought I'd take it at face
>value and go fo it. Is there an 'optimal' VMT with respect to
>road contstruction costs? in your own mind.. or in literature?
None that I've seen. For either question.
John Lansford
>On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 18:53:41 -0500, John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net>
>wrote:
>>From your previous posts, it certainly seems like it.
>
>Then you weren't paying attention - I have never proposed that roads
>do pay for themselves or that they should.
We all know what you propose, Ross.
>>The cost of collection would probably be higher than the user charge.
>>Talk about wasting money!!
>
>I agree. A complete waste of money.
Be specific. What is "a complete waste of money"; the collection or
the replacement of the bridge in the first place?
>>>The fact is you can't transfer
>>>the health effects of air pollution from the people who live in a
>>>community to the drivers.
>>
>>Most drivers are on the interstate system less than 20 miles. It's
>>their air too.
>
>And you point is?
That the community is not exclusive of the people who use the highway,
Ross. I am not going to do your thinking for you; you made the initial
claim segregating "community" from "drivers".
>>> So its not an economic question - its a
>>>value question. Which is more important knocking 10 minutes off
>>>someone's commute or preventing children from getting asthma.
>>
>>Congested vehicles create more pollution than free flowing ones.
>
>But that isn't the choice. One question is does 500 vehicles traveling
>at 30 mph create more pollution than 1000 vehicles at 60 mph.
Yes. Besides, congestion is defined as "stop/start operation". Traffic
moving smoothly at or around 30mph is approaching or at capacity,
which isn't the same thing as congestion.
And no one, not even the most virulent anti-road hysterical "induced
traffic" doomsayers, claim that traffic will double simply because a
road is built. Your example is both dishonest and bogus (to use a
Larry Gross favorite word).
>>>If suppose if one does not care about the impact on Point A, Point B
>>>or anything in between. And that seems to be the motto of road
>>>builders.
>>
>>OUCH!! I'm so wounded.
>>
>>Fact is, Ross, there are a whole lot of agencies and organizations
>>that have to sign off on highway projects before they get built. Go
>>look at the signatories of a major EIS and you'll figure that out.
>
>And your point?
That these roads get built with the approval of a LOT of people and
agencies, Ross, not just on the whim or the plan of "road builders".
Some of these agencies would very likely be happy to eliminate all new
road projects, but even they (reluctantly) admit that they serve a
purpose.
>>> Freeways are about the worst way to move traffic in almost
>>>every urban situation.
>>
>>Ross, you saying so doesn't make it so.
>>
>>I suppose compared to Star Trek teleporters they lose out, but do you
>>have another alternative that is better than "the worst way to move
>>traffic in almost every urban situation"?
>
>A multi-modal boulevard is one alternative, another is to improve
>transit and another is to create a complete street grid.
Only if you've got a city with the proper densities to make these
work. Or, perhaps you intend to create this Utopia somehow?
>>
>>> They divide communities,
>>
>>EIS requires community participation and agreement.
>
>Not true, unless you define community as a particular jurisdiction.
Community is a group of humans acting in concert. Obviously any group
of any size could be one. Why do I have to do your thinking for you,
Ross?
> Do
>local communities in North Carolina have the authority to close a
>state highway running through town? They certainly don't in Oregon.
No, but often they are the ones to ask for a bypass so their
"community" can be restored to them.
>>> force
>>>congestion onto the roads that provide the "limited access"
>>
>>"force"?? Interchanges provide access to major crossroads, which are
>>most likely designed to handle the traffic. Or would you like the
>>120,000 vpd on I-40 heading to RTP to take less capable collector and
>>local routes?
>
>I want those trips on a *more* capable transportation system that
>includes transit, pedestrians and bicycles.
And how would you "force" (to use your own word) people to use this
system that doesn't address the current land use patterns?
>You are ignoring the question of what creating a limited access
>highway does to the connecting roads.
Usually it improves their operation, as it pulls traffic off of them
and onto the road most capable of handling it.
>Essentially it forces traffic to
>a few choke points in order to facilitate people driving through the
>community.
Or to the community, or from the community. You see, everyone isn't
driving "through" the community. Sometimes the jobs are elsewhere
(i.e. not in the "community") and people have to drive to get to them.
> When those roads fill up they "need" to be widened.
This happens to non-freeways as well, Ross. Why is that? Could it be
because there are more people driving now then there were ten or
twenty years ago?
Light rail limits choice and opportunities by forcing (to use your
words) people to live or work near whereever the rail lines travel.
> Its also why I think "fixing" congestion is the wrong
>reason to add a new road.
We use the word relieve, actually.
>The question is what opportunities are you
>providing, who are you providing them for and who pays the costs both
>financial and social. We won't stop building roads when we ask those
>questions, but they will be different roads that build and enhance
>communities instead of destroying them.
>
>>
>>Typical anti-car rhetoric.
>
>Or a typical response to auto-uber-alles. I use a car, I like to
>drive, I'm not anti-auto.
No, then you're just a hypocrite. At least have the decency to act on
your beliefs.
>>>>Surface roads are best for providing access to property. This isn't
>>>>even open for debate.
>>>
>>>This is why we have the mess we do. Engineers ahve decided all those
>>>other values are irrelevant to moving traffic.
>>
>>The initial statement was "we don't know what road type is best for
>>moving traffic", Ross. I cleared up that false statement with two
>>sentences; the one about freeways and the one about local roads.
>
>I pulled it out of context then. My point stands.
I leave the above statement for the benefit of those making it all the
way down here in this post.
>Sorry. I meant that small and medium sized towns *do* have
>transportation problems - usually traffic created by highways that run
>through their main street.
I've lived in several small towns, and worked in many small/medium
ones. Your claim is not grounded in reality from what I have seen.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>Ross Williams wrote:
>
>>Its a little like going to a restaurant with a group of people and
>>agreeing in advance to split the bill evenly. On person chooses to
>>have a salad and another the steak and lobster. Sure the "diners" pay
>>for the meal - but the person eating the lobster didn't pay the cost
>>of it. And of course Scott's numbers wouldn't even support that, only
>>that the diners pay most of the cost - if you don't include the tip.
>
>You keep using this sort of example, even when you know it's intellectually
>dishonest for the reasons I've repeatedly stated
I guess I missed them - or perhaps I didn't recognize they had
anything to do with it.
>- reasons, by the way, you've
>not seen fit to refute, even while engaging me in discussions on other points
>in the same posts.
>
>Stop it, please. I'd rather not have to resort to the tactic of repeating
>myself endlessly in order to remind the class that you're dissembling.
>
>Jon Morse
>Herndon, VA
>via lots of much larger places
Ross Williams
wrote:
>Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 18:53:41 -0500, John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>From your previous posts, it certainly seems like it.
>>
>>Then you weren't paying attention - I have never proposed that roads
>>do pay for themselves or that they should.
>
>We all know what you propose, Ross.
>
>>>The cost of collection would probably be higher than the user charge.
>>>Talk about wasting money!!
>>
>>I agree. A complete waste of money.
>
>Be specific. What is "a complete waste of money"; the collection or
>the replacement of the bridge in the first place?
>
>>>>The fact is you can't transfer
>>>>the health effects of air pollution from the people who live in a
>>>>community to the drivers.
>>>
>>>Most drivers are on the interstate system less than 20 miles. It's
>>>their air too.
>>
>>And you point is?
>
>That the community is not exclusive of the people who use the highway,
>Ross. I am not going to do your thinking for you; you made the initial
>claim segregating "community" from "drivers".
No its not. But it sure is easier when the pollution is in someone
elses community. I suppose it depends on how broadly you define
community. Perhaps neighborhood would have been a better choice. IN
any case once again - everyone gets some of the pollution, the driver
gets to work faster and the people who live in between take the lions
share of the pollution. And of course everyone pays for the cost of
the road they use.
>
>>>> So its not an economic question - its a
>>>>value question. Which is more important knocking 10 minutes off
>>>>someone's commute or preventing children from getting asthma.
>>>
>>>Congested vehicles create more pollution than free flowing ones.
>>
>>But that isn't the choice. One question is does 500 vehicles traveling
>>at 30 mph create more pollution than 1000 vehicles at 60 mph.
>
>Yes. Besides, congestion is defined as "stop/start operation". Traffic
>moving smoothly at or around 30mph is approaching or at capacity,
>which isn't the same thing as congestion.
So why not just prevent people from getting on the road when it is
approaching congestion?
>
>And no one, not even the most virulent anti-road hysterical "induced
>traffic" doomsayers, claim that traffic will double simply because a
>road is built. Your example is both dishonest and bogus (to use a
>Larry Gross favorite word).
There are a fair number of two lane roads that have been turned into
four lane roads and are now congested - 1 x 2 = doubled. When was the
VMT in Raleigh half what it is today? But my number were only supposed
to be illustrative.
>
>>>>If suppose if one does not care about the impact on Point A, Point B
>>>>or anything in between. And that seems to be the motto of road
>>>>builders.
>>>
>>>OUCH!! I'm so wounded.
>>>
>>>Fact is, Ross, there are a whole lot of agencies and organizations
>>>that have to sign off on highway projects before they get built. Go
>>>look at the signatories of a major EIS and you'll figure that out.
>>
>>And your point?
>
>That these roads get built with the approval of a LOT of people and
>agencies, Ross, not just on the whim or the plan of "road builders".
>Some of these agencies would very likely be happy to eliminate all new
>road projects, but even they (reluctantly) admit that they serve a
>purpose.
There are several agencies that have to consent - but they are working
within specific criteria. Let a neighborhood decide whether it will or
won't allow traffic through their community and see how many raods get
built. Of course they are paying most of the social costs and
gettingnone of the benefits.
>
>>>> Freeways are about the worst way to move traffic in almost
>>>>every urban situation.
>>>
>>>Ross, you saying so doesn't make it so.
>>>
>>>I suppose compared to Star Trek teleporters they lose out, but do you
>>>have another alternative that is better than "the worst way to move
>>>traffic in almost every urban situation"?
>>
>>A multi-modal boulevard is one alternative, another is to improve
>>transit and another is to create a complete street grid.
>
>Only if you've got a city with the proper densities to make these
>work. Or, perhaps you intend to create this Utopia somehow?
What Utopia - I'm talking about Portland<g>. Multi-modla boulevards
will work anywhere. They just won't get people 30 miles across town as
fast.
>>>
>>>> They divide communities,
>>>
>>>EIS requires community participation and agreement.
No it doesn't. At last not the way I would define community. And I am
not suggesting that is should.
>>
>>Not true, unless you define community as a particular jurisdiction.
>
>Community is a group of humans acting in concert. Obviously any group
>of any size could be one. Why do I have to do your thinking for you,
>Ross?
So then if the federal government or the World Trade Organizatoin does
something by definition the community participated and agreed. I don't
define community so broadly and neither do you.
>
>> Do
>>local communities in North Carolina have the authority to close a
>>state highway running through town? They certainly don't in Oregon.
>
>No, but often they are the ones to ask for a bypass so their
>"community" can be restored to them.
Why not give them the right to modify the road to fit their community?
>>>> force
>>>>congestion onto the roads that provide the "limited access"
>>>
>>>"force"?? Interchanges provide access to major crossroads, which are
>>>most likely designed to handle the traffic. Or would you like the
>>>120,000 vpd on I-40 heading to RTP to take less capable collector and
>>>local routes?
>>
>>I want those trips on a *more* capable transportation system that
>>includes transit, pedestrians and bicycles.
>
>And how would you "force" (to use your own word) people to use this
>system that doesn't address the current land use patterns?
How does giving people limited means to access a freeway "address
current land use patterns?" In fact it is designed to override the
land use patterns that exist by preventing people from making direct
use of the road.
>
>>You are ignoring the question of what creating a limited access
>>highway does to the connecting roads.
>
>Usually it improves their operation, as it pulls traffic off of them
>and onto the road most capable of handling it.
You don't need to limit access to accomplish that - and in most cases
the freeway existed before the traffic that is on it. At least that
has been what I have seen over the last 35 years. We built interstates
where there was nothing and now there is massive development and only
a handful of heavily congested roads that have access to the
interstate. All traffic from the development has to be funnelled
through these connections. And they are almost always more congested
than the freeway.
>
>>Essentially it forces traffic to
>>a few choke points in order to facilitate people driving through the
>>community.
>
>Or to the community, or from the community. You see, everyone isn't
>driving "through" the community. Sometimes the jobs are elsewhere
>(i.e. not in the "community") and people have to drive to get to them.
>
>> When those roads fill up they "need" to be widened.
>
>This happens to non-freeways as well, Ross. Why is that? Could it be
>because there are more people driving now then there were ten or
>twenty years ago?
No. VMT is increasing faster than population. It isn't more people
driving, it is people driving more that is the problem.
No one is forced to use light rail.
>
>> Its also why I think "fixing" congestion is the wrong
>>reason to add a new road.
>
>We use the word relieve, actually.
OK. As far as I can tell all that "relief" has brough no "relief".
>
>>The question is what opportunities are you
>>providing, who are you providing them for and who pays the costs both
>>financial and social. We won't stop building roads when we ask those
>>questions, but they will be different roads that build and enhance
>>communities instead of destroying them.
>>
>>>
>>>Typical anti-car rhetoric.
>>
>>Or a typical response to auto-uber-alles. I use a car, I like to
>>drive, I'm not anti-auto.
>
>No, then you're just a hypocrite. At least have the decency to act on
>your beliefs.
Falling back to the mtr personal attacks again huh?
>
>>>>>Surface roads are best for providing access to property. This isn't
>>>>>even open for debate.
>>>>
>>>>This is why we have the mess we do. Engineers ahve decided all those
>>>>other values are irrelevant to moving traffic.
>>>
>>>The initial statement was "we don't know what road type is best for
>>>moving traffic", Ross. I cleared up that false statement with two
>>>sentences; the one about freeways and the one about local roads.
>>
>>I pulled it out of context then. My point stands.
>
>I leave the above statement for the benefit of those making it all the
>way down here in this post.
>
>>Sorry. I meant that small and medium sized towns *do* have
>>transportation problems - usually traffic created by highways that run
>>through their main street.
>
>I've lived in several small towns, and worked in many small/medium
>ones. Your claim is not grounded in reality from what I have seen.
Then you need to get out more. And didn't you just mention bypasses -
are those not to deal with traffic problems? Or is there no problem
they just want a bypass so that they don't have any customers in their
business district.
Ross Williams
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 18:56:31 -0800, in misc.transport.road
>Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote in
><7jjp9s0hpcp7m2ets...@4ax.com>:
>
>...
>
>>You are ignoring the question of what creating a limited access
>>highway does to the connecting roads. Essentially it forces traffic to
>>a few choke points in order to facilitate people driving through the
>>community. When those roads fill up they "need" to be widened.
>>Suddenly you have a community diced up by wide roads with heavy
>>traffic. The only safe way to get around the community is to drive
>>your car and that just adds to the traffic congestion.
>
>...
>
>Something we agree on. Dealing with freeways entrances and crossovers
>has been a disaster in some areas. The sad part is that this "big block"
>thinking occurs everywhere in suburban development today. Because it is
>so prevalent, no one wants to live on a connector any more. I live on a
>secondary connector that was built about 40 years ago. There are lots of
>alternatives and my road is not overly busy. Similar connectors in newer
>areas of many cities are unliveable. Dead ends are the worst developer
>idea that city fathers ever bought into. They aren't any better with a
>different name.
>
>Instead of light to moderate traffic on all the side streets and
>workable traffic on main roads, we have minimal traffic on side streets
>and horrendous traffic and concomitent anger on the inadequate through
>roads.
You hit it exactly.
Jon Morse
>Its a little like going to a restaurant with a group of people and
>agreeing in advance to split the bill evenly. On person chooses to
>have a salad and another the steak and lobster. Sure the "diners" pay
>for the meal - but the person eating the lobster didn't pay the cost
>of it. And of course Scott's numbers wouldn't even support that, only
>that the diners pay most of the cost - if you don't include the tip.
You keep using this sort of example, even when you know it's intellectually
dishonest for the reasons I've repeatedly stated - reasons, by the way, you've
Bob Johnson
wrote:
>
>
>Bob Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:48:23 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
>> >but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
>> >having health problems? Is this really what we want to do?
>>
>> False premise, false conclusion.
>
>IOW more roads don't mean worse air quality?
You made the assertion; you prove it. Last report on NYC air quality
I saw put electricity generation and other stationary sources in first
place.
Bob Johnson
David Jensen
Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote in
<7jjp9s0hpcp7m2ets...@4ax.com>:
...
>You are ignoring the question of what creating a limited access
>highway does to the connecting roads. Essentially it forces traffic to
>a few choke points in order to facilitate people driving through the
>community. When those roads fill up they "need" to be widened.
>Suddenly you have a community diced up by wide roads with heavy
>traffic. The only safe way to get around the community is to drive
>your car and that just adds to the traffic congestion.
...
David Jensen
Bob Johnson <rNeOjSoP...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<ljsp9so9iel0nemej...@4ax.com>:
Can't be. Aren't we going to electric cars because they don't pollute?
</sarcasm>
Jim Mearkle
dubn...@richmond.infi.net wrote:
> Jim Mearkle wrote:
> > In the short term, traffic is "induced" when a capacity improvement
> > releases pent-up demand, and people drive more than they did before.
>
> Where did this pent-up demand come from? And where is it going?
Drivers that would rather forgo a trip than deal with congestion.
> > If traffic diverts from a parallel route, but the total VMT for
> > both routes stays the same, no traffic was induced.
> The views I've read (and follow) is that the VMT is irrelevant in this
> case. If the origins/destinations are the same, and traffic diverts
> from one route to another, it is diverted traffic.
If it diverts to your street, it's relevant. On a macroscopic level, it
probably has a small effect. In the regional traffic and safety office
that I work in, we have to deal with the effects, such as signal timing.
> > I've seen different studies that showed that the increase in volume
is
> > both more and less than proportional to the increase in capacity.
>
> Makes it hard to implement as a policy or analysis procedure, doesn't
it?
I suppose so, but I get involved after the planning process is done.
> >
> > I suppose increased traffic due to suburban developement that was
> > increased by the capacity improvement could also say to be induced,
>
> This, I believe, is the heart of the matter. Those who scream
> "induced traffic fills up our roadways as fast as you widen them" >
appear to believe: new capacity leads to more/new development leads to >
more traffic - therefore capacity creates traffic.
The "If you build it, they will come" theory. (W/ a nod to Costner) In
a developing area, it might be true. At an individual level, commute
time probably plays a part in most peoples' choice of a place to live.
All else equal, people woould probably choose to live on the corridor
with the lowest v/c ratio, which would increase the traffic on that
road. Of course, this increases the v/c ratio, and all else is hardly
ever equal, or even equivalent.
> The logic is more than slightly faulty, since whether or not
> development occurs is *not* a foregone conclusion, let alone what type
> of development and the trip generation characteristics associated with
> it - and hence, I believe, the disparity in the numbers you cite
> above.
Whether and what type of develpement occurs is affected my various
factors, of which corridor capacity is only one. We have a town in our
region where development of some sort is a foregone conclusion - it's
the only one in the county without restrictive zoning, and the utility
infrastructure to support it.
What is needed is a good way to estimate the elasticity of the demand
for capacity. Adding capacity in an area experiencing slow growth would
have a different effect than the same improvement in an place that has
already experienced rapid growth, or one that is about to.
--
Jim Mearkle, Civil Engineer 1, NYSDOT
This is my opinion, not the Department's.
Ask the questions that have no answers.
--Wendell Berry
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 12:21:16 -0800, in misc.transport.road
> Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote in
> <au0p9s4efinfe13jv...@4ax.com>:
>
> >On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 03:31:43 GMT, David Jensen
> ><da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Sure, in theory, but like Ross's quest for a perfect way to pay for roads,
> >
> >I think you misunderstand - I don't have any problem with paying for
> >roads through taxes. I do have a problem with people claiming that
> >this somehow creates an entitlement to a fast, convenient 20 mile
> >commute through other people's communities. Or that deciding to spend
> >those tax dollars elsewhere is somehow illigitmate. Or that it
> >introduces some sort of self-limiting market economics to decisions to
> >build roads.
>
> You don't like the highway trust fund?
Any 'fund' that everybody puts into and everybody takes out of begs
the question of whether everyone pays for their 'share'. If usage is
not controlled then some folks will use far more of it than others
and if the fund does not increase its revenue when the overall
costs exceed it's ability to pay for actual uses then you run into
problems. Insurance companies, medicare, social security either
have strict limits on how much you can 'use' per person and/or
they raise rates when they have to to keep the fund solvent.
The HTF does not do this. The result is that more and more
projects get on the 'need' list instead of having funds available
to build the 'need' list. Increasing VMT actually drains the
'fund' at a faster rate but it is not accounted for financially.
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:31:39 -0500, in misc.transport.road
> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote in <389CA4CB...@pobox.com>:
>
> >
> >
> >Bob Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:48:23 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
> >> >but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
> >> >having health problems? Is this really what we want to do?
> >>
> >> False premise, false conclusion.
> >
> >IOW more roads don't mean worse air quality?
>
> Correct.
then we have a fundamental problem because that's exactly the premise
of air quality conformity - or to be more precise.. the premise of the
AQC regs is to KNOW what the impact of adding new roads is on
AQ and to set a limit based on impacts to health and welfare of citizens.
Larry Gross
> Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:10:51 -0500, John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>They do. Scott has covered this quite well, I think.
> >
> >Its a little like going to a restaurant with a group of people and
> >agreeing in advance to split the bill evenly. On person chooses to
> >have a salad and another the steak and lobster. Sure the "diners" pay
> >for the meal - but the person eating the lobster didn't pay the cost
> >of it. And of course Scott's numbers wouldn't even support that, only
> >that the diners pay most of the cost - if you don't include the tip.
> >
> >I suppose you could do an analysis of any project in terms of whether
> >the additional gas tax paid by drivers on a stretch of pavement will
> >pay the full cost of that pavement. I wonder how many projects would
> >be built under those constraints. Certainly most bridges would never
> >get built.
>
> So we end up with crumbling infrastructure, narrow roads (especially
> in rural and mountainous areas), high pollution and rising death rates
> on unsafe roads.
>
> All because "this project doesn't carry enough cars to pay for it".
no.. we end up with a better accounting system that helps to better
identify 'good' cost-effective projects AND ones that are not so
cost effective. We can still build the less cost-effective but at least
we'd have a better idea of which ones are more costly.
>
> >I am not suggesting this is a good idea -
>
> From your previous posts, it certainly seems like it.
>
> > but it would come close to
> >meeting the standard of each person paying for what they use.
>
> So, if a bridge project required $1 million to replace a worn out
> bridge, and it carried, say, 4000 vehicles today, how would you charge
> them for the "use" of this structure over its life?
>
> In fact, let's use one of my projects, OK? A real world example and
> see if this could work:
>
> B-3077 is a bridge project on a rural road north of N. Wilkesboro in
> Wilkes County, NC. The old bridge is obsolete and in a terrible
> alignment (two short reverse curves on each end of a narrow bridge).
> The cost to replace it is estimated to run about $900,000. The
> existing traffic is around 800 vpd but expected to grow to 1000 vpd
> twenty years from now.
>
> The bridge is designed to last at least 50 years, probably more.
>
> Now, if I assume an average of 900 vpd over the life of the study
> time, and every one of them use that bridge every day (not likely but
> let's do it this way for simplicity's sake), then you've got:
>
> 900 x 365 days x 20 years = 6,570,000 trips across the bridge.
>
> Dividing the cost ($900,000) by the total trips gets you a charge of
> $0.14 per trip across the bridge to pay for it.
>
> The cost of collection would probably be higher than the user charge.
> Talk about wasting money!!
interesting numbers..thanks for doing them. I can't see a cost-effective
way of isolating the bridge for per use charges either.
> And that's just one little bridge replacement project. Think of the
> bureaucracy that would spring up if ALL projects were handled that
> way, not to mention the absolute hatred of drivers forced to stop
> every few miles and hand over some change.
It would have to be handled on a larger basis. I'd agree that
charging per project would be unfeasible for small projects.
>
> >>Since a lot of what you've been complaining about are subjective
> >>issues (quality of life, environmental damage, noise pollution, etc),
> >>how would these "costs" be applied?
> >
> >By deciding whether to build a project.
>
> Which already takes place. Thanks for agreeing with the current
> process.
>
> >The fact is you can't transfer
> >the health effects of air pollution from the people who live in a
> >community to the drivers.
>
> Most drivers are on the interstate system less than 20 miles. It's
> their air too.
that's the argument that smokers use when they want to smoke in
a restaurant.
>
> > So its not an economic question - its a
> >value question. Which is more important knocking 10 minutes off
> >someone's commute or preventing children from getting asthma.
>
> Congested vehicles create more pollution than free flowing ones.
until we quantify the numbers..this is an unproven claim.
>
>
> >>Sure we do. Freeways are best for moving traffic from Point A to Point
> >>B.
> >
> >If suppose if one does not care about the impact on Point A, Point B
> >or anything in between. And that seems to be the motto of road
> >builders.
>
> OUCH!! I'm so wounded.
>
> Fact is, Ross, there are a whole lot of agencies and organizations
> that have to sign off on highway projects before they get built. Go
> look at the signatories of a major EIS and you'll figure that out.
umm... I can name a few where the 'signatories' did not include
all Federal Resource Agencies nor other stakeholders.
>
>
> > Freeways are about the worst way to move traffic in almost
> >every urban situation.
>
> Ross, you saying so doesn't make it so.
>
> I suppose compared to Star Trek teleporters they lose out, but do you
> have another alternative that is better than "the worst way to move
> traffic in almost every urban situation"?
>
> > They divide communities,
>
> EIS requires community participation and agreement.
a joke on some projects.. and on others... the community
gets cast as NIMBYs.
> Providing them the opportunity to get out of cities, raise families in
> rural areas, and spread out away from their packed in neighbors in
> urban areas. IOW, it gives them a CHOICE. You are against that.
is this the purpose of providing transportation facilities.. to provide
state-funded opportunities that should be paid for by private citizens?
> > The increase air pollution
>
> Actually they reduce it, by reducing congestion.
NOT! <- put some numbers on it, please.
Larry Gross
John Lansford wrote:
> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bob Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:48:23 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
> >> >but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
> >> >having health problems? Is this really what we want to do?
> >>
> >> False premise, false conclusion.
> >
> >IOW more roads don't mean worse air quality?
>
> Less congestion equals less pollution. Improved/new roads reduce
> congestion...
maybe initially.... show me numbers for air pollution at LOS A
vs LOS F.
Larry Gross
John Lansford wrote:
> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >John Lansford wrote:
>
> >> Sure we do. Freeways are best for moving traffic from Point A to Point
> >> B. Surface roads are best for providing access to property. This isn't
> >> even open for debate.
> >
> >numbers please? just from your own experience.. ballpark...
>
> The Green Book has a better definition of arterials, collectors and
> locals than I could ever give.
>
> There aren't any numbers that would say "this should be a freeway,
> this should not". It depends on lots of things, such as design speed,
> length of travel, level of property access, and purpose & need.
>
> >> In conjunction with responsible land use and planning decisions. Why
> >> is it small and medium sized towns don't have transportation problems
> >> (without anything but the most rudimentary transit systems, either)
> >> but larger cities do?
> >
> >thats an easy question and a hard answer.
>
> But a fair one, I think. Is it the amount of people in a given area?
> The type of government (of course, cities typically all have the same
> type, right?), "backroom politics", or what?
agree.
>
> >
> >had to read the last sentence a few times and realized that it has
> >several potential meanings.. so then I thought I'd take it at face
> >value and go fo it. Is there an 'optimal' VMT with respect to
> >road contstruction costs? in your own mind.. or in literature?
>
> None that I've seen. For either question.
was it a dumb question?
Larry Gross
Bob Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:31:39 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bob Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:48:23 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
> >> >but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
> >> >having health problems? Is this really what we want to do?
> >>
> >> False premise, false conclusion.
> >
> >IOW more roads don't mean worse air quality?
>
> You made the assertion; you prove it. Last report on NYC air quality
> I saw put electricity generation and other stationary sources in first
> place.
no Bob.. I did not claim that... EPA did... others say that it's not true
but don't post data to back it up. I'm asking for data to back up the
claim that more less congestion results in better air quality. It's
hard for me to believe that a car going 60 generates less pollution
than one going 30.. The premise seems to be that twice as much
time at 30 is more pollution that half as much time at 60..or some
such. If this is true.. it has powerful implications.
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 18:56:31 -0800, in misc.transport.road
> Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote in
> <7jjp9s0hpcp7m2ets...@4ax.com>:
>
> ...
>
> >You are ignoring the question of what creating a limited access
> >highway does to the connecting roads. Essentially it forces traffic to
> >a few choke points in order to facilitate people driving through the
> >community. When those roads fill up they "need" to be widened.
> >Suddenly you have a community diced up by wide roads with heavy
> >traffic. The only safe way to get around the community is to drive
> >your car and that just adds to the traffic congestion.
>
> ...
>
> Something we agree on. Dealing with freeways entrances and crossovers
> has been a disaster in some areas. The sad part is that this "big block"
> thinking occurs everywhere in suburban development today. Because it is
> so prevalent, no one wants to live on a connector any more. I live on a
> secondary connector that was built about 40 years ago. There are lots of
> alternatives and my road is not overly busy. Similar connectors in newer
> areas of many cities are unliveable. Dead ends are the worst developer
> idea that city fathers ever bought into. They aren't any better with a
> different name.
>
> Instead of light to moderate traffic on all the side streets and
> workable traffic on main roads, we have minimal traffic on side streets
> and horrendous traffic and concomitent anger on the inadequate through
> roads.
in part.. because the new projects don't take these impacts into account
either manually or with a regional transportation model.
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 04:04:45 GMT, in misc.transport.road
> Bob Johnson <rNeOjSoP...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> <ljsp9so9iel0nemej...@4ax.com>:
>
> >On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:31:39 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Bob Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:48:23 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
> >>> >but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
> >>> >having health problems? Is this really what we want to do?
> >>>
> >>> False premise, false conclusion.
> >>
> >>IOW more roads don't mean worse air quality?
> >
> >You made the assertion; you prove it. Last report on NYC air quality
> >I saw put electricity generation and other stationary sources in first
> >place.
> >
> >Bob Johnson
>
> Can't be. Aren't we going to electric cars because they don't pollute?
>
we're going to hybrids which don't pollute when they're standing still. :-)
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Any 'fund' that everybody puts into and everybody takes out of begs
> the question of whether everyone pays for their 'share'. If usage is
> not controlled then some folks will use far more of it than others
> and if the fund does not increase its revenue when the overall
> costs exceed it's ability to pay for actual uses then you run into
> problems.
Not a good analogy, since individual fuel taxes paid are a function of
miles traveled and vehicle fuel mileage. Registration fees, license
fees and vehicle purchase sales tax together make up a considerable part
of the state road trust funds, and they are a function of the number of
vehicles owned and their value(s).
Every extra mile driven costs the motorist, and reduces the remaining
life of the vehicle. There are large variable and semi-variable costs
to individual motor vehicle usage, and these all provide large
incentives to restrict the usage as much as possible.
> Insurance companies, medicare, social security either
> have strict limits on how much you can 'use' per person and/or
> they raise rates when they have to to keep the fund solvent.
You posted this analogy yesterday, and it is NOT applicable to road
trust funds. Too many insurance claims against an insurance fund will
exceed the total premium revenues.
Road trust funds are NOT in anywise like insurance funds.
> The HTF does not do this. The result is that more and more
> projects get on the 'need' list instead of having funds available
> to build the 'need' list. Increasing VMT actually drains the
> 'fund' at a faster rate but it is not accounted for financially.
Untrue. Increasing VMT (by more vehicles and drivers) will generate
more road trust fund revenues.
Larry Gross
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
They'll generate "more" but not "enough". It _IS_ like an insurance
company that is paying out more in claims than it is taking in in
premiums. In this case, more customers actually make the problem
worse. So.. if increased VMT increases the shortfall in funding..
then no matter how many more people drive.. it's actually
makes the problem worse. The analogy with insurance would be
if the insurance company didn't pay it's claims until a couple of
years later.. Each additional month they operate in a shortfall
mode makes the ultimate payoff even worse. That's what
happens to roads.. the more people drive.. the more capacity
is used up and the more needed capacity is generated and
the funds accumulated while increasing are not increasing
relative to need. The proof is in the pudding. If this were not
true.. then all needed roads would be built as soon as they
are programmed.. instead.. more and more show up on
the need priority list without identified funding.. until you
end up like Northern Va. where the needs have been
unmet for years and now estimates range from 10 to
20 billion to address the problem. It's might feel
good to blame the NIMBYs for this situation but the
reality is that the funds are not there and that's why
the new roads are not being built. The "resolution"
to this problem in the Va. General Assembly is moving
towards tax increases...the only argument is which tax..
whether it is on Corporate.. sales... gas.. etc. Bottom
line.. taxes are going up to pay for roads because the
current HTF structure is NOT working.
John Lansford
>On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 23:34:32 -0500, John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 18:53:41 -0500, John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>>The cost of collection would probably be higher than the user charge.
>>>>Talk about wasting money!!
>>>
>>>I agree. A complete waste of money.
>>
>>Be specific. What is "a complete waste of money"; the collection or
>>the replacement of the bridge in the first place?
Come on, Ross. Answer the question.
>>Yes. Besides, congestion is defined as "stop/start operation". Traffic
>>moving smoothly at or around 30mph is approaching or at capacity,
>>which isn't the same thing as congestion.
>
>So why not just prevent people from getting on the road when it is
>approaching congestion?
Some places do this now. It's called "ramp metering".
>>
>>And no one, not even the most virulent anti-road hysterical "induced
>>traffic" doomsayers, claim that traffic will double simply because a
>>road is built. Your example is both dishonest and bogus (to use a
>>Larry Gross favorite word).
>
>There are a fair number of two lane roads that have been turned into
>four lane roads and are now congested - 1 x 2 = doubled.
Growth is planned for and expected, Ross. No one will say if a road is
widened that it will never become congested again.
> When was the
>VMT in Raleigh half what it is today?
I have no idea.
>But my number were only supposed
>to be illustrative.
Then use reasonable examples.
>>That these roads get built with the approval of a LOT of people and
>>agencies, Ross, not just on the whim or the plan of "road builders".
>>Some of these agencies would very likely be happy to eliminate all new
>>road projects, but even they (reluctantly) admit that they serve a
>>purpose.
>
>There are several agencies that have to consent - but they are working
>within specific criteria. Let a neighborhood decide whether it will or
>won't allow traffic through their community and see how many raods get
>built. Of course they are paying most of the social costs and
>gettingnone of the benefits.
Oh yes. The old "repeal eminent domain" objective. I suspect you'd be
right; no road, anywhere, would get built or improved if everyone
along that route had to agree to give up property.
Fortunately, the Constitution foresaw that and allows the state the
right to condemn property for public infrastructure projects.
>>>A multi-modal boulevard is one alternative, another is to improve
>>>transit and another is to create a complete street grid.
>>
>>Only if you've got a city with the proper densities to make these
>>work. Or, perhaps you intend to create this Utopia somehow?
>
>What Utopia - I'm talking about Portland<g>.
You mean the place that says this?
From the findings of the MPO 2040 project:
"Dramatic increases in congestion in the Portland
metropolitan area and the projected
population growth over the next twenty years
are expected to lead to serious, system-
wide congestion. In the past decade, congestion
in the Portland area has steadily
increased. The Portland region ranked as the
14 th most congested place nationally in
1993, up from 18 th in 1982. During that period,
our congestion index increased by more
than 27% and annual hours of delay experienced
by drivers more than doubled."
"...Over the next twenty years,
just to keep congestion at current
levels, transportation needs are expected to
outstrip available revenues by $3 billion.
Further, if we wanted to eliminate congestion
we would need $13.5 billion instead of the
$1 billion we are expected to have. Even if we
were able to finance this magnitude of
road construction, it would make it impossible
for us to maintain conformity with federal
air quality standards."
The full text is at this address:
http://www.metro.dst.or.us/transpo/tros/findings.pdf
> Multi-modla boulevards
>will work anywhere. They just won't get people 30 miles across town as
>fast.
They'll work only when people are packed together in dense
developments, which given the choice, they will not voluntarily do.
>>>>
>>>>> They divide communities,
>>>>
>>>>EIS requires community participation and agreement.
>
>No it doesn't. At last not the way I would define community. And I am
>not suggesting that is should.
No you want to give them veto power over needed highway improvements.
>>Community is a group of humans acting in concert. Obviously any group
>>of any size could be one. Why do I have to do your thinking for you,
>>Ross?
>
>So then if the federal government or the World Trade Organizatoin does
>something by definition the community participated and agreed. I don't
>define community so broadly and neither do you.
Then tell us what YOUR definition is.
>>No, but often they are the ones to ask for a bypass so their
>>"community" can be restored to them.
>
>Why not give them the right to modify the road to fit their community?
They provide input. We listen and adjust our plans to fit their
requests. One of my projects added a roundabout, lowered the design
speed, added a raised grass median, wide outside lanes for bicycle
use, sidewalks and a narrower typical in some areas, all at the
request of the local government.
>>>I want those trips on a *more* capable transportation system that
>>>includes transit, pedestrians and bicycles.
>>
>>And how would you "force" (to use your own word) people to use this
>>system that doesn't address the current land use patterns?
>
>How does giving people limited means to access a freeway "address
>current land use patterns?" In fact it is designed to override the
>land use patterns that exist by preventing people from making direct
>use of the road.
Because direct access means compromising the reason of an arterial; to
move traffic efficiently. Freeways are the safest roads there are
because of controlled access, and they are the most efficient as well
for the same reason.
>>>You are ignoring the question of what creating a limited access
>>>highway does to the connecting roads.
>>
>>Usually it improves their operation, as it pulls traffic off of them
>>and onto the road most capable of handling it.
>
>You don't need to limit access to accomplish that - and in most cases
>the freeway existed before the traffic that is on it. At least that
>has been what I have seen over the last 35 years. We built interstates
>where there was nothing and now there is massive development
Due to local governments not understanding what freeways were intended
to do.
> and only
>a handful of heavily congested roads that have access to the
>interstate.
That's the local government's fault, not any intrinsic failure of the
system itself.
> All traffic from the development has to be funnelled
>through these connections. And they are almost always more congested
>than the freeway.
Because of the local access permitted by the local government. Freeway
to freeway interchanges aren't usually any more congested than any
other section of a freeway, though.
>
>No. VMT is increasing faster than population. It isn't more people
>driving, it is people driving more that is the problem.
And you find that bad.
>>Light rail limits choice and opportunities by forcing (to use your
>>words) people to live or work near whereever the rail lines travel.
>
>No one is forced to use light rail.
Right. And they choose not to and choose to stay in their cars. Could
it be they find light rail unsuitable for where they need to go?
>>
>>> Its also why I think "fixing" congestion is the wrong
>>>reason to add a new road.
>>
>>We use the word relieve, actually.
>
>OK. As far as I can tell all that "relief" has brough no "relief".
Robert and Scott have both provided numbers pointing out that road
miles has not kept up with population growth, too. I've also pointed
out several examples of where improved roads DID relieve congestion
problems.
>>
>>No, then you're just a hypocrite. At least have the decency to act on
>>your beliefs.
>
>Falling back to the mtr personal attacks again huh?
>
No. Look up what a hypocrite is. Essentially, someone who says one
thing and does another, usually in direct opposition to what he
advocates. Like you.
>>I've lived in several small towns, and worked in many small/medium
>>ones. Your claim is not grounded in reality from what I have seen.
>
>Then you need to get out more. And didn't you just mention bypasses -
>are those not to deal with traffic problems?
There are some situations where politics dictated to us that certain
roads in NC will be widened. Rather than place the new four lane
through a town, we build a bypass around it.
> Or is there no problem
>they just want a bypass so that they don't have any customers in their
>business district.
No, they like the fact that the through traffic won't be disrupting
local citizens' efforts to reach their commercial locations.
John Lansford
>John Lansford wrote:
>> And that's just one little bridge replacement project. Think of the
>> bureaucracy that would spring up if ALL projects were handled that
>> way, not to mention the absolute hatred of drivers forced to stop
>> every few miles and hand over some change.
>
>It would have to be handled on a larger basis. I'd agree that
>charging per project would be unfeasible for small projects.
Let's go a bit higher, then.
R-2210A is a project widening a road in an area experiencing growth
pains. The existing road is two lanes, we're proposing a mixed use of
4 and 5 lanes along the project length. We project about 20,000 vpd on
the road in the future, only about 12,000 currently use it. It has a
mix of commercial and residential use.
The cost is around $10,000,000 to make these improvements. Let's do
the numbers again:
16,000 vpd (the average; I know that's not right but bear with me) x
365 x 20 years = 116,800,000 trips to the design year.
The cost to those who use it is $0.09 per trip. Even if you throw in
the R/W costs (estimated to be about $2,000,000) the cost per trip
becomes a DIME!!
Shall we go on??? I've got LOTS of examples....
>> Most drivers are on the interstate system less than 20 miles. It's
>> their air too.
>
>that's the argument that smokers use when they want to smoke in
>a restaurant.
I'm pointing out that the claim that drivers are not part of the
community is invalid.
>>
>> > So its not an economic question - its a
>> >value question. Which is more important knocking 10 minutes off
>> >someone's commute or preventing children from getting asthma.
>>
>> Congested vehicles create more pollution than free flowing ones.
>
>until we quantify the numbers..this is an unproven claim.
I disagree. Idling vehicles pollute more than moving ones. So do
accelerating ones vs those moving at a constant velocity.
>> Fact is, Ross, there are a whole lot of agencies and organizations
>> that have to sign off on highway projects before they get built. Go
>> look at the signatories of a major EIS and you'll figure that out.
>
>umm... I can name a few where the 'signatories' did not include
>all Federal Resource Agencies nor other stakeholders.
Why didn't they?
>
>> Providing them the opportunity to get out of cities, raise families in
>> rural areas, and spread out away from their packed in neighbors in
>> urban areas. IOW, it gives them a CHOICE. You are against that.
>
>is this the purpose of providing transportation facilities.. to provide
>state-funded opportunities that should be paid for by private citizens?
No, but it is a benefit.
>> > The increase air pollution
>>
>> Actually they reduce it, by reducing congestion.
>
>NOT! <- put some numbers on it, please.
Even the EPA will tell you that idling vehicles contribute more to
pollution than moving ones, Larry. Where they and the DOT's disagree
is the additional growth that governments allow along roads (and the
DOT's have no control over).
John Lansford
>
>
>John Lansford wrote:
>
>> Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Bob Johnson wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:48:23 -0500, Larry Gross <lgr...@pobox.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >closer to home.. yes we can build a ton of new roads to serve demand
>> >> >but what if the result is huge increases in young people and older people
>> >> >having health problems? Is this really what we want to do?
>> >>
>> >> False premise, false conclusion.
>> >
>> >IOW more roads don't mean worse air quality?
>>
>> Less congestion equals less pollution. Improved/new roads reduce
>> congestion...
>
>maybe initially.... show me numbers for air pollution at LOS A
>vs LOS F.
I know of no way to give you the numbers you appear to be looking for,
other than to measure a car's exhaust output at a constant velocity
and one in stop-start conditions. That has been done and shows that
the constant speed condition has fewer pollutants in the exhaust than
the stop/start condition.
John Lansford
>no Bob.. I did not claim that... EPA did... others say that it's not true
>but don't post data to back it up. I'm asking for data to back up the
>claim that more less congestion results in better air quality. It's
>hard for me to believe that a car going 60 generates less pollution
>than one going 30.. The premise seems to be that twice as much
>time at 30 is more pollution that half as much time at 60..or some
>such. If this is true.. it has powerful implications.
Larry, you've got the idea all wrong. It's not "does a car at xx mph
pollute less than one going xx-yy?"
It is a car moving at a constant velocity pollutes less than one in
stop-start conditions, which is typically the definition of freeway
congestion.
It's also the definition of non-freeway traffic operation, too, which
should be a good indicator of just where a lot of the pollution in
large cities is coming from...
Now, if you don't believe me, answer this: why is it that your car
gets better gas mileage on a freeway, where you can drive at a
constant speed, then in a city, where you have to start and stop at
all the signals and change speed all the time for various conditions?
Could it be that your car's engine is less efficient (i.e. more
polluting) in city driving? See how this applies to congested freeways
now????
SPUI
David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:r1up9sgmo9ftpdpru...@4ax.com...
> Instead of light to moderate traffic on all the side streets and
> workable traffic on main roads, we have minimal traffic on side streets
> and horrendous traffic and concomitent anger on the inadequate through
> roads.
But do we really want more traffic on residential streets?
--
Daniel Moraseski - roadGEEK in Orlando FL
http://spui.cjb.net/index.html - FL and NJ roads, and a list of SPUIs
http://ocps.cjb.net - Orange County Prison System (why student IDs suck)
Editor of http://roadlinks.cjb.net (highway cat of Open Directory Project)
David Jensen
"SPUI" <d...@moraseskiREMOVE.com> wrote in <UIgn4.12$576.302@client>:
>
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:r1up9sgmo9ftpdpru...@4ax.com...
>
>> Instead of light to moderate traffic on all the side streets and
>> workable traffic on main roads, we have minimal traffic on side streets
>> and horrendous traffic and concomitent anger on the inadequate through
>> roads.
>
>But do we really want more traffic on residential streets?
Most of the residential street traffic is local drivers. We're not
talking about huge increases in residential street traffic, and it won't
be much of a problem if the drivers drive sensibly. I'm not advocating
that all roads be treated as equals.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>
>Then tell us what YOUR definition is.
I consider a community the area I can walk or bike to.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>>Why not give them the right to modify the road to fit their community?
>
>They provide input. We listen and adjust our plans to fit their
>requests. One of my projects added a roundabout, lowered the design
>speed, added a raised grass median, wide outside lanes for bicycle
>use, sidewalks and a narrower typical in some areas, all at the
>request of the local government.
Good. I think that is being responsive and you are to be commended.
More roads need to be built in this manner.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:r1up9sgmo9ftpdpru...@4ax.com...
>
>> Instead of light to moderate traffic on all the side streets and
>> workable traffic on main roads, we have minimal traffic on side streets
>> and horrendous traffic and concomitent anger on the inadequate through
>> roads.
>
>But do we really want more traffic on residential streets?
If you mean through traffic, no. But if you mean people able to get
from their house to a neighbors or the local store without going on
the arterial, then yes.
Ross Williams
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
>Untrue. Increasing VMT (by more vehicles and drivers) will generate
>more road trust fund revenues.
Not if those vehicles have a lower mpg than the current vehicle. Are
you saying that the gas tax generates the same revenue from a SUV as
it does from a Honda Civic?
The question you have ignored is what is driving the need for new
roads is not increased VMT - but increased VMT at particular times of
the day. How many bridges would be built if they had to depend on the
gas tax generated by the miles driven on the bridge? Not many. I
suspect the same is true of most highways in urban areas.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 23:34:32 -0500, John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 18:53:41 -0500, John Lansford <jo...@vnet.net>
>>>>wrote:
>
>>>>>The cost of collection would probably be higher than the user charge.
>>>>>Talk about wasting money!!
>>>>
>>>>I agree. A complete waste of money.
>>>
>>>Be specific. What is "a complete waste of money"; the collection or
>>>the replacement of the bridge in the first place?
>
>Come on, Ross. Answer the question.
trying to collect a toll for every street by the method you propose.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>>>>A multi-modal boulevard is one alternative, another is to improve
Yep. Portland has made many of the same mistakes as everywhere else.
Please note the final paragraph. No amount of investment in roads will
solve the problem.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>>So why not just prevent people from getting on the road when it is
>>approaching congestion?
>
>Some places do this now. It's called "ramp metering".
Yep. Its essentially storing cars on local streets so that people
driving through a neighborhood won't have to slow down. Very efficient
for the freeway, not so hot for people trying to use the local
streets.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>>There are several agencies that have to consent - but they are working
>>within specific criteria. Let a neighborhood decide whether it will or
>>won't allow traffic through their community and see how many raods get
>>built. Of course they are paying most of the social costs and
>>gettingnone of the benefits.
>
>Oh yes. The old "repeal eminent domain" objective. I suspect you'd be
>right; no road, anywhere, would get built or improved if everyone
>along that route had to agree to give up property.
I didn't say anything about eminent domain. Lets just leave it at the
community level. The neighborhood association or the local town
council has to approve it.
Ross Williams
wrote:
Thanks for the thoughful comments. Do you have any ideas about ehat
the differences would be?
Ross Williams
wrote:
>>>Light rail limits choice and opportunities by forcing (to use your
>>>words) people to live or work near whereever the rail lines travel.
>>
>>No one is forced to use light rail.
>
>Right. And they choose not to and choose to stay in their cars. Could
>it be they find light rail unsuitable for where they need to go?
Likely. In fact it doesn't go most places. The answer is to provide
high quality transit in more places. Then people will have a choice.
Now your choice most places is to drive or to drive.
It interesting how often people here claim that people are "choosing"
the auto and in the next breath point out how there really is no other
choice.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>>>No, then you're just a hypocrite. At least have the decency to act on
SPUI
Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:i0lr9sso3jhuuhrmf...@4ax.com...
OK - I think I get it now.
Ross Williams
wrote:
>>>I've lived in several small towns, and worked in many small/medium
>>>ones. Your claim is not grounded in reality from what I have seen.
>>
>>Then you need to get out more. And didn't you just mention bypasses -
>>are those not to deal with traffic problems?
>
>There are some situations where politics dictated to us that certain
>roads in NC will be widened. Rather than place the new four lane
>through a town, we build a bypass around it.
>
>> Or is there no problem
>>they just want a bypass so that they don't have any customers in their
>>business district.
>
>No, they like the fact that the through traffic won't be disrupting
>local citizens' efforts to reach their commercial locations.
"traffic disrupting local citizens' efforts to reach their commercial
locations" isn't a traffic problem?