 |
Re: Induced Demand Nonsense, in a congested condition, you're an idiot-Pfaraffeggnuggins my ass....
Author: Ghost of Mook
Date: 09-22-2018 - 21:06
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another person who looks at increase mobility as a
> negative, ...
"Mobility is Bad" - except for me - is a mantra of many NIMBYs and environmental groups.
> 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.
> ...
> ...We have observed a
> significant decline in VMT growth per capita, due
> to increased levels of congestion ...
In the limit, infinite congestion results in zero VMT. But VMT is only one part of the equation for localized air quality and other quality of life measures; speed or variations on it (i.e. congestion measures) are also needed. Perhaps VHT and PHT (person-hours traveled) are more useful measures in urban and surrounding areas? Recent changes to eliminate consideration of congestion in environmental studies (i.e. LOS, for all its faults) in favor of VMT generation are useful for some forms of planning but not sufficient, imo, for proper environmental analysis. Multiple modes can be used to address congestion and minimize VMT growth.
> 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.
Sierra Club attacked at least one BART extension as being growth inducing because it was supposedly (and rightly) considered the capacity equivalent of at least a 4-lane (possibly more) freeway. Expectation was that it would induce suburban sprawl and more driving by people using BART. Yes, the sprawl happened, but a good portion of the it occurred well before BART, and the people on BART are not on the freeway so some VMT is eliminated though person-miles traveled are not.
> 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.....
That is absolutely what needs to be done. Demand, for both commute trips and housing, is driven by jobs; in the Bay Area, for instance, traffic improved dramatically (VMT down, LOS improved) after the dot-com bust. Jobs evaporated, people left. The opposite is going on now.
Fresno has been pointed out in the past as a pathological example of jobs-housing balance: too far away from the big metros to be seriously in the commute zone, so jobs and housing are in at least regional balance; and with the roughly continuous grid system of major streets and freeways overlaid on that grid (providing shortcuts) the traffic actually gets around fairly well. The "problem" is that there are no really large concentrations of jobs or housing, so everybody's going in all directions and transit is mostly useless.
> 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.
AVs should be a big thing for local use at the home and work ends of a line-haul transit trip. I expect AVs to, eventually, replace local transit. But they won't all be robo-taxis; many might be robo-shuttles or even robo-buses depending on the demand for a particular area and time. Fully grade-separated transit can easily be automated; BART was largely automated from day one.
> 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?
Which of course is what transportation is all about: mobility of people and goods.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another person who looks at increase mobility as a
> negative, ...
"Mobility is Bad" - except for me - is a mantra of many NIMBYs and environmental groups.
> 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.
> ...
> ...We have observed a
> significant decline in VMT growth per capita, due
> to increased levels of congestion ...
In the limit, infinite congestion results in zero VMT. But VMT is only one part of the equation for localized air quality and other quality of life measures; speed or variations on it (i.e. congestion measures) are also needed. Perhaps VHT and PHT (person-hours traveled) are more useful measures in urban and surrounding areas? Recent changes to eliminate consideration of congestion in environmental studies (i.e. LOS, for all its faults) in favor of VMT generation are useful for some forms of planning but not sufficient, imo, for proper environmental analysis. Multiple modes can be used to address congestion and minimize VMT growth.
> 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.
Sierra Club attacked at least one BART extension as being growth inducing because it was supposedly (and rightly) considered the capacity equivalent of at least a 4-lane (possibly more) freeway. Expectation was that it would induce suburban sprawl and more driving by people using BART. Yes, the sprawl happened, but a good portion of the it occurred well before BART, and the people on BART are not on the freeway so some VMT is eliminated though person-miles traveled are not.
> 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.....
That is absolutely what needs to be done. Demand, for both commute trips and housing, is driven by jobs; in the Bay Area, for instance, traffic improved dramatically (VMT down, LOS improved) after the dot-com bust. Jobs evaporated, people left. The opposite is going on now.
Fresno has been pointed out in the past as a pathological example of jobs-housing balance: too far away from the big metros to be seriously in the commute zone, so jobs and housing are in at least regional balance; and with the roughly continuous grid system of major streets and freeways overlaid on that grid (providing shortcuts) the traffic actually gets around fairly well. The "problem" is that there are no really large concentrations of jobs or housing, so everybody's going in all directions and transit is mostly useless.
> 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.
AVs should be a big thing for local use at the home and work ends of a line-haul transit trip. I expect AVs to, eventually, replace local transit. But they won't all be robo-taxis; many might be robo-shuttles or even robo-buses depending on the demand for a particular area and time. Fully grade-separated transit can easily be automated; BART was largely automated from day one.
> 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?
Which of course is what transportation is all about: mobility of people and goods.
