 |
Re: Induced demand? No one drives for "Pfarfeggnuggin" in highly congested built out conditions. It is a canard that is true in newly urbanizing areas, that is no longer true once there is severe congestion. But I agree with your sentiments..
Author: BOB2
Date: 09-30-2024 - 21:12
R Ruiz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Metro has added how many miles of freeway lanes
> since 2015? How much was spent on Sepulveda Pass?
> How much are the new express lanes supposed to
> cost? Every dollar Metro/Caltrans spends expanding
> highways takes away ridership from transit. Now we
> have way too much emphasis on zero-emission
> transit instead of mode shift while we continue to
> subsidize wasteful fossil-fuel and land-intensive
> automobile use.
>
> There is a huge demand to live in more sustainable
> urban, walkable, transit served communities, but
> there is almost no effort to build them while we
> throw a tiny portion of our transportation dollars
> at a few transit projects that cost way more than
> they should while continuing to blindly believe
> that cars on highways should continue to be the
> dominant way to get around.
>
> I have plenty of issues with riding on Metro, but
> the ridership issues are most certainly because we
> all pay a ridiculous amount of money to ensure
> that driving continues to be the most convenient
> way to get around.
>
> None of this is going to end well unless there are
> some major changes in priorities, policies, and
> spending now.
The "induced demand" nonsense does not seem to hold in severely built out and congested conditions, although it is a phenomenon we observe in newly suburbanizing situations. Or at least "appears to", that does not hold in built out congested conditions. Because congestion is itself a self-limiting factor on mobility, and as communities build out with more jobs and better/closer access to more jobs, good, and services, this "appearance" of of an "induced demand" phenomenon disappears completely as congestion levels rise, and we even see evidence that in very severe congestion, it actually creates some observable degree of "trip abeyance" (folks reducing their propensity for trip making).
The Sepulveda Pass is a classic example of wasted transportation (although this project was done long before 2015), with an HOV lane and operational improvements at an exorbitant cost per lane mile, that upon completion, and after years of additional construction related delays added to the already low flow stop and go conditions, is no better now, than before the project. The 15 or so spent in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside County on the 91 and I-1060, and is another example of "diminishing marginal return on investment" over the last 15 years. As is the $15 billion spent by LA, Orange and San Diego Counties on adding effectively one to two lanes on the I-5. And the estimated costs of additional lanes on our built-out freeways, will be two to three times that much, in the next phase.
All of the reasons I support a balanced investment in more public transit, commuter, and regional rail systems, since the fully allocated cost per marginal "seat mile" of travel demand accommodated is between 10 nd 20 times cheaper than building more freeways, especially added capacity into and out of our already built-up urban centers. Building out an intermediate high-speed line with a Brighline level of service on the Coastline is pennies on the dollar compared with for fully allocated capital and operating costs of additional freeway lanes for added marginal trips in that corridor today. The same analysis can show this for a first world rail service level of operations serving the Beaumont Pass and the Coachella Valley.
This is why I look at fully allocated marginal cost per seat mile as a good way to compare alternatives (as, in addition to freeway lane costs, also includes all of the "downstream" arterial congestion and parking costs, as well as vehicle operating costs per mile, which are much higher than the cost of providing a fully allocated seat mile by Metrolink, by several times over today.
I support your laudable goals but based on solid analysis and realistic data-driven observable and well documented travel needs and the likely "demand", based upon sound investment and operational planning, not on the wishful thinking and/or good intentions of even well-meaning folks.
Or even the "spin" from a lot of folks who seem to mean well and want to "believe", even when the facts and data just don't support some of their desires and/or assumptions.
Or worse, based upon the "spin" bought and paid for by various special interest groups, often laundered through folks in non-profits, to lobby for a certain nonenvironmental or transportation goals, like say the contractors have done in lobbying CARB on mandating only rail electrification, and actually "opposing" other cheaper alternatives thaet are just as "clean".
Building more LRT, and then cutting the level of service, because you can't properly fund operations as were promised in the EIS's for these projects, as LACMTA has done, is not how we get more people on the trains, and it does need some fixing.
So maybe, if rail groups spent more time on lobbying for better levels of rail services, and less time bad mouthing the perfectly reasonable and sensible test of the hydrogen fuel trains on Arrow, it just might be a more productive use of my "scarce" membership dues that are going to such organizations?
What you want to achieve is a good thing. Which I basically agree with. How it is achieved is just a lot harder and a much more complex challenge than some folks seem to think it is or maybe would like it to be.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Metro has added how many miles of freeway lanes
> since 2015? How much was spent on Sepulveda Pass?
> How much are the new express lanes supposed to
> cost? Every dollar Metro/Caltrans spends expanding
> highways takes away ridership from transit. Now we
> have way too much emphasis on zero-emission
> transit instead of mode shift while we continue to
> subsidize wasteful fossil-fuel and land-intensive
> automobile use.
>
> There is a huge demand to live in more sustainable
> urban, walkable, transit served communities, but
> there is almost no effort to build them while we
> throw a tiny portion of our transportation dollars
> at a few transit projects that cost way more than
> they should while continuing to blindly believe
> that cars on highways should continue to be the
> dominant way to get around.
>
> I have plenty of issues with riding on Metro, but
> the ridership issues are most certainly because we
> all pay a ridiculous amount of money to ensure
> that driving continues to be the most convenient
> way to get around.
>
> None of this is going to end well unless there are
> some major changes in priorities, policies, and
> spending now.
The "induced demand" nonsense does not seem to hold in severely built out and congested conditions, although it is a phenomenon we observe in newly suburbanizing situations. Or at least "appears to", that does not hold in built out congested conditions. Because congestion is itself a self-limiting factor on mobility, and as communities build out with more jobs and better/closer access to more jobs, good, and services, this "appearance" of of an "induced demand" phenomenon disappears completely as congestion levels rise, and we even see evidence that in very severe congestion, it actually creates some observable degree of "trip abeyance" (folks reducing their propensity for trip making).
The Sepulveda Pass is a classic example of wasted transportation (although this project was done long before 2015), with an HOV lane and operational improvements at an exorbitant cost per lane mile, that upon completion, and after years of additional construction related delays added to the already low flow stop and go conditions, is no better now, than before the project. The 15 or so spent in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside County on the 91 and I-1060, and is another example of "diminishing marginal return on investment" over the last 15 years. As is the $15 billion spent by LA, Orange and San Diego Counties on adding effectively one to two lanes on the I-5. And the estimated costs of additional lanes on our built-out freeways, will be two to three times that much, in the next phase.
All of the reasons I support a balanced investment in more public transit, commuter, and regional rail systems, since the fully allocated cost per marginal "seat mile" of travel demand accommodated is between 10 nd 20 times cheaper than building more freeways, especially added capacity into and out of our already built-up urban centers. Building out an intermediate high-speed line with a Brighline level of service on the Coastline is pennies on the dollar compared with for fully allocated capital and operating costs of additional freeway lanes for added marginal trips in that corridor today. The same analysis can show this for a first world rail service level of operations serving the Beaumont Pass and the Coachella Valley.
This is why I look at fully allocated marginal cost per seat mile as a good way to compare alternatives (as, in addition to freeway lane costs, also includes all of the "downstream" arterial congestion and parking costs, as well as vehicle operating costs per mile, which are much higher than the cost of providing a fully allocated seat mile by Metrolink, by several times over today.
I support your laudable goals but based on solid analysis and realistic data-driven observable and well documented travel needs and the likely "demand", based upon sound investment and operational planning, not on the wishful thinking and/or good intentions of even well-meaning folks.
Or even the "spin" from a lot of folks who seem to mean well and want to "believe", even when the facts and data just don't support some of their desires and/or assumptions.
Or worse, based upon the "spin" bought and paid for by various special interest groups, often laundered through folks in non-profits, to lobby for a certain nonenvironmental or transportation goals, like say the contractors have done in lobbying CARB on mandating only rail electrification, and actually "opposing" other cheaper alternatives thaet are just as "clean".
Building more LRT, and then cutting the level of service, because you can't properly fund operations as were promised in the EIS's for these projects, as LACMTA has done, is not how we get more people on the trains, and it does need some fixing.
So maybe, if rail groups spent more time on lobbying for better levels of rail services, and less time bad mouthing the perfectly reasonable and sensible test of the hydrogen fuel trains on Arrow, it just might be a more productive use of my "scarce" membership dues that are going to such organizations?
What you want to achieve is a good thing. Which I basically agree with. How it is achieved is just a lot harder and a much more complex challenge than some folks seem to think it is or maybe would like it to be.
