what's with local pols opposing expanding 270 and 495?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When democrats eventually ban driving, force you to use public transit, drastically increasing commuting time, they aren't going to exempt you because you drive a hybrid or a Tesla. It's going to apply to you as well.

No one is suggesting banning driving, but it is the single most inefficient means of moving people within limited public space. As such, if one wants to drive a single occupancy vehicle, then it will come with trade offs, like bike lanes that allow people to move without polluting the air and bus lanes that allow a single engine to move 20-70 people at a time, rather than one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Induced demand in transportation is actually a contested concept and not proven.

https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth

Citing Randal O'Toole about induced demand is like citing Andrew Wakefield about the measles vaccine.

Just change “Twitter expert” below to “DCUM expert”. Everything that you have been posting about transit and induced demand is irrelevant to this project.

Another area where the Twitter experts often err is their assumption that public transit is the answer to congestion. That’s an assertion that Duranton and Turner said was false. “… we find no evidence that public transit affects VKT…” the paper says (VKT is vehicle kilometers traveled). They point out over and over that adding transit does not remove traffic from the roads in any meaningful way.

Another thing not factored in is that a congested wider road moves more vehicles than a congested narrow road. While the issue of congestion is not solved, the extra trips induced that re-crowd the road are still happening and still have benefits to society. Additional economic activity is happening. While there’s plenty of room for debate over whether these benefits outweigh other costs (pollution, roadway fatalities, etc), it is something that does need to be factored in.

Finally, the data supporting induced demand is only for freeways. Toll roads don’t work the same way, because the economics are different. While the perceived cost of being stuck in traffic is a factor on freeways, toll roads add an additional charge that may vary with time of day, allowing pricing to reflect supply and demand. These road additions can relieve congestion without inducing too much new demand as to negate the benefit (the lower part of the chart in this article explains this visually).

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/31/induced-demand-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

How is it that Asian and European countries rely heavily on mass transit and bikes and don't have the issues we have here in the US? This really isn't rocket science.

1. In those countries, mass transit is a transportation system not a jobs program
2. THose are small, densely populated countries. That's why. Ask yourself why Canada is that way? Because it's a large, sparsely populated country.

So you are saying tokyo, Beijing, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam etc are all sparsely populated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the past 40 years, construction of US urban freeways and arterials far outpaced urban population growth. Yet traffic delay per commuter more than doubled.

That's because people move further out. Democrats make cities unlivable, so people move out, but have to commute in to work. And it's going to move further out. Many people will move to Frederick, many to Loudoun, to Fredericksburg etc.

Yogi Berra moment in this thread. The cities are so unlivable that we have to move an hour away because it is so congested and the restaurants are all packed and too many people are kayaking on the river or going to Nats games.



No, the only reason people have to move so far away is because they cannot afford the housing they prefer within the city. If you want a SFH and can only spend $300k, then sure, you are moving to Damascus. If you are willing to spend a million, then there are some places in DC where you can buy. If there were more housing choices in DC, then it wouldn't be as expensive, but NIMBYs and the height act limit options on building types and density, so we have a diffuse metro area.

No, you're not. If you don't want well and septic, and you don't want to live right on a major road, you should figure on $500,000 for Damascus. For $300,000, you're moving to Frederick County and driving south on 270, unless you can make the very very limited MARC train schedule work for you.

Hey, I have an idea! What if, instead of this for-profit highway-widening toll-lane scheme, the state put some money into improving MARC train service for people who live in the 270 corridor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When democrats eventually ban driving, force you to use public transit, drastically increasing commuting time, they aren't going to exempt you because you drive a hybrid or a Tesla. It's going to apply to you as well.

No one is suggesting banning driving, but it is the single most inefficient means of moving people within limited public space. As such, if one wants to drive a single occupancy vehicle, then it will come with trade offs, like bike lanes that allow people to move without polluting the air and bus lanes that allow a single engine to move 20-70 people at a time, rather than one.

Electric cars emit zero pollution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it that Asian and European countries rely heavily on mass transit and bikes and don't have the issues we have here in the US? This really isn't rocket science.

1. In those countries, mass transit is a transportation system not a jobs program
2. THose are small, densely populated countries. That's why. Ask yourself why Canada is that way? Because it's a large, sparsely populated country.

Germany and France are small, densely populated countries? China is a small, densely populated country? The Boston-Washington corridor is a large, sparsely-populated area?

Also, why is Canada what way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Induced demand in transportation is actually a contested concept and not proven.

https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth

Citing Randal O'Toole about induced demand is like citing Andrew Wakefield about the measles vaccine.

Just change “Twitter expert” below to “DCUM expert”. Everything that you have been posting about transit and induced demand is irrelevant to this project.

Another area where the Twitter experts often err is their assumption that public transit is the answer to congestion. That’s an assertion that Duranton and Turner said was false. “… we find no evidence that public transit affects VKT…” the paper says (VKT is vehicle kilometers traveled). They point out over and over that adding transit does not remove traffic from the roads in any meaningful way.

Another thing not factored in is that a congested wider road moves more vehicles than a congested narrow road. While the issue of congestion is not solved, the extra trips induced that re-crowd the road are still happening and still have benefits to society. Additional economic activity is happening. While there’s plenty of room for debate over whether these benefits outweigh other costs (pollution, roadway fatalities, etc), it is something that does need to be factored in.

Finally, the data supporting induced demand is only for freeways. Toll roads don’t work the same way, because the economics are different. While the perceived cost of being stuck in traffic is a factor on freeways, toll roads add an additional charge that may vary with time of day, allowing pricing to reflect supply and demand. These road additions can relieve congestion without inducing too much new demand as to negate the benefit (the lower part of the chart in this article explains this visually).

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/31/induced-demand-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

How is it that Asian and European countries rely heavily on mass transit and bikes and don't have the issues we have here in the US? This really isn't rocket science.

1. In those countries, mass transit is a transportation system not a jobs program
2. THose are small, densely populated countries. That's why. Ask yourself why Canada is that way? Because it's a large, sparsely populated country.

So you are saying tokyo, Beijing, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam etc are all sparsely populated?

Read again what I wrote. China is maybe a little larger than the USA area wise, but has like 4x the population. It is not sparsely population. European countries other than russia are small, and densely populated, hence why public transit works better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it that Asian and European countries rely heavily on mass transit and bikes and don't have the issues we have here in the US? This really isn't rocket science.

1. In those countries, mass transit is a transportation system not a jobs program
2. THose are small, densely populated countries. That's why. Ask yourself why Canada is that way? Because it's a large, sparsely populated country.

Germany and France are small, densely populated countries? China is a small, densely populated country? The Boston-Washington corridor is a large, sparsely-populated area?

Also, why is Canada what way?

Texas is larger than Germany. So you think France and Germany are large countries area wise? Do you think they are not densely populated? Maybe you should try going to them, then you'd now they are small,densely populated countries. I used to live in germany.

[Anonymous]

Maryland is doing everything it can to take a permanent back seat (no pun intended) to Virginia. It’s their loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When democrats eventually ban driving, force you to use public transit, drastically increasing commuting time, they aren't going to exempt you because you drive a hybrid or a Tesla. It's going to apply to you as well.

No one is suggesting banning driving, but it is the single most inefficient means of moving people within limited public space. As such, if one wants to drive a single occupancy vehicle, then it will come with trade offs, like bike lanes that allow people to move without polluting the air and bus lanes that allow a single engine to move 20-70 people at a time, rather than one.

Electric cars emit zero pollution.

The electricity sources do, but that's the point. THe elite want everyone reliant on the state, so you will have to use public transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When democrats eventually ban driving, force you to use public transit, drastically increasing commuting time, they aren't going to exempt you because you drive a hybrid or a Tesla. It's going to apply to you as well.

No one is suggesting banning driving, but it is the single most inefficient means of moving people within limited public space. As such, if one wants to drive a single occupancy vehicle, then it will come with trade offs, like bike lanes that allow people to move without polluting the air and bus lanes that allow a single engine to move 20-70 people at a time, rather than one.

Electric cars emit zero pollution.

Yet still take up the same public space to move one person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Induced demand in transportation is actually a contested concept and not proven.

https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth

Citing Randal O'Toole about induced demand is like citing Andrew Wakefield about the measles vaccine.

Just change “Twitter expert” below to “DCUM expert”. Everything that you have been posting about transit and induced demand is irrelevant to this project.

Another area where the Twitter experts often err is their assumption that public transit is the answer to congestion. That’s an assertion that Duranton and Turner said was false. “… we find no evidence that public transit affects VKT…” the paper says (VKT is vehicle kilometers traveled). They point out over and over that adding transit does not remove traffic from the roads in any meaningful way.

Another thing not factored in is that a congested wider road moves more vehicles than a congested narrow road. While the issue of congestion is not solved, the extra trips induced that re-crowd the road are still happening and still have benefits to society. Additional economic activity is happening. While there’s plenty of room for debate over whether these benefits outweigh other costs (pollution, roadway fatalities, etc), it is something that does need to be factored in.

Finally, the data supporting induced demand is only for freeways. Toll roads don’t work the same way, because the economics are different. While the perceived cost of being stuck in traffic is a factor on freeways, toll roads add an additional charge that may vary with time of day, allowing pricing to reflect supply and demand. These road additions can relieve congestion without inducing too much new demand as to negate the benefit (the lower part of the chart in this article explains this visually).

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/31/induced-demand-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

How is it that Asian and European countries rely heavily on mass transit and bikes and don't have the issues we have here in the US? This really isn't rocket science.

1. In those countries, mass transit is a transportation system not a jobs program
2. THose are small, densely populated countries. That's why. Ask yourself why Canada is that way? Because it's a large, sparsely populated country.

So you are saying tokyo, Beijing, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam etc are all sparsely populated?

Read again what I wrote. China is maybe a little larger than the USA area wise, but has like 4x the population. It is not sparsely population. European countries other than russia are small, and densely populated, hence why public transit works better.

Public transportation works at scale in Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francsico, New York and Boston. It is growing in LA and Minneapolis.

There is no reason it can't work well here if VRE and MARC are properly funded in addition to WMATA being properly funded.

Adding more car lanes is a loser. It hasn't worked anywhere in the world. Maryland is no exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When democrats eventually ban driving, force you to use public transit, drastically increasing commuting time, they aren't going to exempt you because you drive a hybrid or a Tesla. It's going to apply to you as well.

No one is suggesting banning driving, but it is the single most inefficient means of moving people within limited public space. As such, if one wants to drive a single occupancy vehicle, then it will come with trade offs, like bike lanes that allow people to move without polluting the air and bus lanes that allow a single engine to move 20-70 people at a time, rather than one.

Electric cars emit zero pollution.

The electricity sources do, but that's the point. THe elite want everyone reliant on the state, so you will have to use public transit.

When you go to the gas station, where do you think the gasoline that comes out of the pump nozzle comes from, and how do you think it got there? It doesn't grow in those tanks underground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it that Asian and European countries rely heavily on mass transit and bikes and don't have the issues we have here in the US? This really isn't rocket science.

1. In those countries, mass transit is a transportation system not a jobs program
2. THose are small, densely populated countries. That's why. Ask yourself why Canada is that way? Because it's a large, sparsely populated country.

Germany and France are small, densely populated countries? China is a small, densely populated country? The Boston-Washington corridor is a large, sparsely-populated area?

Also, why is Canada what way?

Texas is larger than Germany. So you think France and Germany are large countries area wise? Do you think they are not densely populated? Maybe you should try going to them, then you'd now they are small,densely populated countries. I used to live in germany.

That's nice. The population density of Germany is about 623 people per square mile. In contrast, the population density of Maryland is...about 623 people per square mile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maryland is doing everything it can to take a permanent back seat (no pun intended) to Virginia. It’s their loss.

It’s crazy. They have no alternative plan. Just some pie in the sky hope they can force people into transit when the politicians don’t take transit themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maryland is doing everything it can to take a permanent back seat (no pun intended) to Virginia. It’s their loss.

It’s crazy. They have no alternative plan. Just some pie in the sky hope they can force people into transit when the politicians don’t take transit themselves.

"Force people into transit" how, exactly? I always wonder. Please explain.