 |
Re: Induced Demand Nonsense, in a congested condition, you're an idiot-Pfaraffeggnuggins my ass....
Author: BOB2
Date: 09-22-2018 - 19:58
Another person who looks at increase mobility as a negative, there is demand for access to where we want to go, either we provide enough, or we face congestion, severe congestion, or vastly reduced access.
Travel "time" budgets being fairly constant, as congestion levels increase demand is "suppressed" as the time "cost" of more and more congested travel increases (increased cost=reduced demand in a ?normal good" like "access" which is what "mobility" provides). As density increases much of the fall in travel demand is a associated with two significant factors.
The first factor is that increased congestion (travel limited to a fairly constant average individual average time, and reduced miles per hour=increased travel time) will suppress demand. And, the second is increased density itself. Which allows for a greater number of "substitutes" destinations, which divert trips to access closer locations, where the same "utility" (jobs, good, services, entertainment, education, etc.) of that "access", because the travel time "cost" is lower, and fits within that travel time "budget" we observe in trip making behavior.
We have observed no such "induced demand" with any project completed in the last 30 years in any major urban area in CA. We have observed a significant decline in VMT growth per capita, due to increased levels of congestion (and the fact that we can't make days longer...).
Ironically, some folks have pointed to rail commute service creating "induced demand", this is a locational effect, where people locate over time, to take advantage of the "access" provided, and is a variant of "suppressed" demand, now allowed to a place on the Gold Line like Old Pasadena, which you might not have gone to on the screwed up 210.
If you want to reduce congestion, make sure that the 85% of jobs now being created now going into "business use only" segregated land uses, with 4.5 parking spaces per 1000 sq. feet required and no transit access are located on "transit", instead of just the TOD housing, which doesn't connect to any jobs.....
Meanwhile, with cleaner and automated vehicles, and end to congestion and the demand for individual mobility and access, we need to invest in better and more efficient roads, just like we need to be making efficient and cost effective rail investments.
After all doesn't this awful modern freedom we have to travel and have access to the places and things we want to see, use, have, or just experience sure sucks, doesn't it?
Travel "time" budgets being fairly constant, as congestion levels increase demand is "suppressed" as the time "cost" of more and more congested travel increases (increased cost=reduced demand in a ?normal good" like "access" which is what "mobility" provides). As density increases much of the fall in travel demand is a associated with two significant factors.
The first factor is that increased congestion (travel limited to a fairly constant average individual average time, and reduced miles per hour=increased travel time) will suppress demand. And, the second is increased density itself. Which allows for a greater number of "substitutes" destinations, which divert trips to access closer locations, where the same "utility" (jobs, good, services, entertainment, education, etc.) of that "access", because the travel time "cost" is lower, and fits within that travel time "budget" we observe in trip making behavior.
We have observed no such "induced demand" with any project completed in the last 30 years in any major urban area in CA. We have observed a significant decline in VMT growth per capita, due to increased levels of congestion (and the fact that we can't make days longer...).
Ironically, some folks have pointed to rail commute service creating "induced demand", this is a locational effect, where people locate over time, to take advantage of the "access" provided, and is a variant of "suppressed" demand, now allowed to a place on the Gold Line like Old Pasadena, which you might not have gone to on the screwed up 210.
If you want to reduce congestion, make sure that the 85% of jobs now being created now going into "business use only" segregated land uses, with 4.5 parking spaces per 1000 sq. feet required and no transit access are located on "transit", instead of just the TOD housing, which doesn't connect to any jobs.....
Meanwhile, with cleaner and automated vehicles, and end to congestion and the demand for individual mobility and access, we need to invest in better and more efficient roads, just like we need to be making efficient and cost effective rail investments.
After all doesn't this awful modern freedom we have to travel and have access to the places and things we want to see, use, have, or just experience sure sucks, doesn't it?
