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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Presumably that "induced demand" was created by people who wanted to drive before but couldn't because of conditions. I happen to think that government that enables more people to be satisfied is good government.

I'm wondering what other areas you apply that philosophy to, because polls consistently show large margins of support for universal health care coverage, good transit options, and automatic voter registration for all eligible voters.

I'll address the first one, since I have spent a career in health care policy. The only reason that universal health care might have widespread public support is that they haven't spent any time getting care in: Europe, the VA or Tri-Care. It is a fantasy. Anyone with money buys out of the universal system.

Who for - America's Health Insurance Plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Presumably that "induced demand" was created by people who wanted to drive before but couldn't because of conditions. I happen to think that government that enables more people to be satisfied is good government.

I'm wondering what other areas you apply that philosophy to, because polls consistently show large margins of support for universal health care coverage, good transit options, and automatic voter registration for all eligible voters.

I'll address the first one, since I have spent a career in health care policy. The only reason that universal health care might have widespread public support is that they haven't spent any time getting care in: Europe, the VA or Tri-Care. It is a fantasy. Anyone with money buys out of the universal system.

Not to derail the thread, but as someone who is married to a European and has lived in Europe, I can assure you that you don’t have a good understanding of health care in Europe. First and obviously, it’s not one country and there are many different models. Second, your description of health care in the counties I’ve lived in would be foreign to the people that lived there.

Just as an aside, I made an appointment for my kid to see the pediatrician in late March. Earliest date I could get one for an annual check up was the first week in July.

[Anonymous]

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

And for more on why induced demand is contested. Like a lot of things, it’s treated as fact but based on research with substantial methodological flaws.

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/induced-demand-is-the-latest-excuse-to-do-nothing-for-roads

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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/

[Anonymous]

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/

You're going to need to have a separate argument about tolls, because the governor's plan is for Transurban to pay to build the toll lanes, and then get their money back by charging tolls for drivers who want to drive in the uncongested toll lanes. What's the implication for people who don't pay to drive in the uncongested toll lanes? They'll be sitting in traffic watching the toll-paying drivers go by. It's built into Transurban's business model for the project. So much for "congestion relief".

[Anonymous]

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/

You're going to need to have a separate argument about tolls, because the governor's plan is for Transurban to pay to build the toll lanes, and then get their money back by charging tolls for drivers who want to drive in the uncongested toll lanes. What's the implication for people who don't pay to drive in the uncongested toll lanes? They'll be sitting in traffic watching the toll-paying drivers go by. It's built into Transurban's business model for the project. So much for "congestion relief".

I think you need to sit down and work through how these extra tolls lanes will induce demand on the non-tolled portion of the freeway to increase congestion. Because I think now you are just throwing things out there to see what sticks to oppose this project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Presumably that "induced demand" was created by people who wanted to drive before but couldn't because of conditions. I happen to think that government that enables more people to be satisfied is good government.

I'm wondering what other areas you apply that philosophy to, because polls consistently show large margins of support for universal health care coverage, good transit options, and automatic voter registration for all eligible voters.

I'll address the first one, since I have spent a career in health care policy. The only reason that universal health care might have widespread public support is that they haven't spent any time getting care in: Europe, the VA or Tri-Care. It is a fantasy. Anyone with money buys out of the universal system.

I listen to radio in the UK and I hear all the time all the problems of the NHS. How long it takes to get an MRI. That people under 45 only only elligible to get vaccinated now, whereas here in the USA they need to give people pot to get them to get vaccinated, we have so many more vaccines available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a recognition that

1. Widening highways for "congestion relief" only leads to more driving and more congestion
2. While also contributing to air pollution, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions
3. And dumping the additional cars on local roads that aren't any bigger
4. Plus the for-profit company that's supposedly going to build it will only make a profit if the "free" lanes stay backed up
5. Plus taxpayers have ended up on the hook for the projects that the for-profit company has built elsewhere
6. Plus it was unlikely to get federal approval anyway because there are alternatives that are less damaging to the environment

Other than that, though...

(And the solution to inadequate transit is to fund better and more transit.)

That makes no sense. People are going to commute regardless of whether they expand roads or not. And this area, the closer you get to DC, the more expensive it is, so people will continue moving away, especially with violent crime going up. Wishing it away isn't a sol;ution. Busses are not a solution. Metro isn't a solution. Even if they expanded metro to frederick and to Woodbridge, it still would make no difference as metro is unreliable at best. Dangerous at worse. What is the solution then?

Widening highways leads to increased traffic is pretty much a rule in road planning. There are outlier exceptions where this doesn't happen, but virtually every time you add roads you add drivers.

And if you don't widen it when it's already overburned you have gridlock. Sitting in traffic isn't going to save the planet. what is wrong with people?

This has been the MoCo/Maryland traffic planning mantra for almost the entire 30 years that I've lived here. There have been two new roads built during that time (Montrose Parkway and the ICC) pushed through during Republican administrations. The default strategy is to force people onto Metro or proposed rapid bus lines. (Note: that the ICC has greatly improved my life and the tolls keep the road from being flooded with cars.)

I totally support widening 270 because I live in Rockville (very close to 270) and we basically can't travel from one part of Rockville to another (or adjacent places like our church in Potomac) without being stuck in commuter traffic. But my city and county governments came out against the proposal with little public comment.

The funniest part is the entirely democrat Moco County Council, nobody uses public transit to go to work. In fact they use it so rarely they have one of those "I'm using public transit today!" and do a selfy on the bus. These people are insane, and people voting for them are insane, unless they love sitting in traffic. Every proposed solution is just insane. They don't realize that WMATA and stations are decided by developers. Now the lunatics here want soviet style dense housing, they want single family homes banned, so every can live a high density lifestyle, while we are experiencing a pandemic. And there WILL be future ones. IT's simple, they don't approve of drinking for you (it's fine for them) and they want to force people do tthings like, and ban things they don't like. These people tyrants, zealots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Prove this. Show me proof that not expanding an overburdened system provides relief to the current gridlock.
What is your solution? TO pray the traffic away? Do you take Metro? It's beyond woeful. It is NOT a viable solution. It is not a transportation system. It is a jobs program. It is not going to provide relief, it is not going to take many cars off the road. So what do you propose to deal with the CURRENT gridlock which is only going to get worse?

At this point, you're basically asking the PP to show you proof that gravity is what keeps you from floating off into space. That's how well-established the theory of induced demand is.

So doing nothing is the solution? Despite knowing more people are moving further out? There is already gridlock. Does expending metro mean more people take metro? So why does it with roads?

Stop building further out. Build more densely. Add more mass transit. Prioritize all highway use during peak periods for mass transit.

That would take 30-50 years. What about now and the immediate future? I'm saying be realistic, not some decades away fantasy.

Why would it take 30-50 years to add more transit and give buses priority on 270 and the Beltway?

Because nobody wants to take a bus. That's why. Honestly, if they expanded the red line to Frederick, which they'll never do, how long do you think it would take for it to open? Even if it were decided to be built tomorrow, it would take decades. It will take decades to just decide to build it. So you want dedicated bus lanes on I270? That means fewer lanes for traffic, making it worse, for a bus that nobody is going to want to take. SO what next? Ban driving then force them to take that bus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You obviously don't use it to commute. Beyond the horrible service, arcing insulators, fires, crashes, they also close lines down, a whole bunch of stations, for months on end, for renovations. The escalators don't work. The system is a nightmare. If they had a japanese style system here, I agree it would be better and possibly a viable alternative to driving. But that's not what we have we. We have a national embarrassment. A disgrace.

The driving equivalent of all of these things happen when you're driving on the roads - especially fires and crashes. How many times have you been delayed by a crash while driving? That's like half of the morning "drive time" news.

Sure that happens once in a while, but it's also possible if there's an exit, to get off and use an alternate route. That's not possible when you are on public transit. When the earthquake happened in DC a few years ago, metro was closed and I had to take a bus and walk home that day. FOrtunately I lived much closer back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a recognition that

1. Widening highways for "congestion relief" only leads to more driving and more congestion
2. While also contributing to air pollution, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions
3. And dumping the additional cars on local roads that aren't any bigger
4. Plus the for-profit company that's supposedly going to build it will only make a profit if the "free" lanes stay backed up
5. Plus taxpayers have ended up on the hook for the projects that the for-profit company has built elsewhere
6. Plus it was unlikely to get federal approval anyway because there are alternatives that are less damaging to the environment

Other than that, though...

(And the solution to inadequate transit is to fund better and more transit.)

That makes no sense. People are going to commute regardless of whether they expand roads or not. And this area, the closer you get to DC, the more expensive it is, so people will continue moving away, especially with violent crime going up. Wishing it away isn't a sol;ution. Busses are not a solution. Metro isn't a solution. Even if they expanded metro to frederick and to Woodbridge, it still would make no difference as metro is unreliable at best. Dangerous at worse. What is the solution then?

Stop making everyone travel to an office in a central place to work.

My office isn't in a central place. It's near Springfield, VA. I live in central moco. Public transit isn't a feasible option for me.

Why don't you move closer to your office?

Because I need to be closer to my parents, they need a lot of help. Also I don't know how long I'll have this job.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Why is the answer always bigger uglier roads?