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.

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.

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/

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can choose to live closer to work or find a new job that’s closer to home

Have you considered that your views on freedom of movement are the same as the repressive government of the Peoples Republic of China and the Soviet Union before that? It’s incredible the authoritarianism and anti-Americanism that you exhibit.

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.

You can choose to live closer to work or find a new job that’s closer to home

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I concur, it's cheaper to drive if you don't work downtown than take the metro. FOr example if I were to take public transit to my current job, it would take at least 2 hours each way, I'd pay the maximum fare both ways and pay the metro parking fee. Instead I drive on roads that are subsidized for your use, takes about 45 minutes each way, and there's free parking at work.someone paid for the parking, it just isn't you. It is most liklely me in the form of subsidies to your employer

IOW if you paid the actual costs for your commute, metro would be more cost effective.

And this isn’t even accounting for the fact that gas should be $6 per gallon at MINIMUM to account for the trillions in tax dollars spent to fight wars over oil k the Middle East.

Gas and driving have huge externalities.

But when Trump made us energy independent, we had to immediately reverse all of the policies.

The monkey wrench in these anti-car peoples logic is electric cars.

No, when liberals outlaw driving, they'll exempt electric cares, for the elite to use.

Why do you think liberals want to outlaw driving?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I concur, it's cheaper to drive if you don't work downtown than take the metro. FOr example if I were to take public transit to my current job, it would take at least 2 hours each way, I'd pay the maximum fare both ways and pay the metro parking fee. Instead I drive on roads that are subsidized for your use, takes about 45 minutes each way, and there's free parking at work.someone paid for the parking, it just isn't you. It is most liklely me in the form of subsidies to your employer

IOW if you paid the actual costs for your commute, metro would be more cost effective.

And this isn’t even accounting for the fact that gas should be $6 per gallon at MINIMUM to account for the trillions in tax dollars spent to fight wars over oil k the Middle East.

Gas and driving have huge externalities.

But when Trump made us energy independent, we had to immediately reverse all of the policies.

The monkey wrench in these anti-car peoples logic is electric cars.

No, when liberals outlaw driving, they'll exempt electric cares, for the elite to use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I concur, it's cheaper to drive if you don't work downtown than take the metro. FOr example if I were to take public transit to my current job, it would take at least 2 hours each way, I'd pay the maximum fare both ways and pay the metro parking fee. Instead I drive on roads that are subsidized for your use, takes about 45 minutes each way, and there's free parking at work.someone paid for the parking, it just isn't you. It is most liklely me in the form of subsidies to your employer

IOW if you paid the actual costs for your commute, metro would be more cost effective.

And this isn’t even accounting for the fact that gas should be $6 per gallon at MINIMUM to account for the trillions in tax dollars spent to fight wars over oil k the Middle East.

Gas and driving have huge externalities.

But when Trump made us energy independent, we had to immediately reverse all of the policies.

The monkey wrench in these anti-car peoples logic is electric cars.

Anonymous wrote:Why is the answer always bigger uglier roads?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I concur, it's cheaper to drive if you don't work downtown than take the metro. FOr example if I were to take public transit to my current job, it would take at least 2 hours each way, I'd pay the maximum fare both ways and pay the metro parking fee. Instead I drive on roads that are subsidized for your use, takes about 45 minutes each way, and there's free parking at work.someone paid for the parking, it just isn't you. It is most liklely me in the form of subsidies to your employer

IOW if you paid the actual costs for your commute, metro would be more cost effective.

And this isn’t even accounting for the fact that gas should be $6 per gallon at MINIMUM to account for the trillions in tax dollars spent to fight wars over oil k the Middle East.

Gas and driving have huge externalities.

But when Trump made us energy independent, we had to immediately reverse all of the policies.

Anonymous wrote:Why is the answer always bigger uglier roads?