HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2019, 9:23 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
I have clearly discussed the impact on property taxes. You have not rebutted that argument. Its specific, not general, its math. I challenge you to explain how any other conclusion is possible.
Jesus Christ man you make it hard to respond because of the way you post. I must have missed the impact on property taxes you brought up so I'm guessing you're referring to property lost from ROW acquisition leading to less property tax? If not please explain.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
It most certainly is; unless, of course, you're suggesting that all sprawl will stop, that Houston will have no further population growth, and that no new cars will occupy the newly created lanes.
I am not suggesting sprawl to stop and it won't stop regardless of freeways. Even cities like Vancouver(BC) that have not a single freeway in the city sprawl. Other more low density sprawl further. Sprawl is not mutually exclusive with freeways and how come rail causing sprawl is never an issue? How can you prove this growth in Houston wouldn't happen without additional freeway lanes? I support the sprawl and enjoy it. I will argue it offers a much better QOL than concrete jungles can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Perhaps that's what you believe, but I won't make assumptions.

I will simply say I don't find that to be a credible scenario.
Again, what are you defining as induced demand? Demand that is induced and otherwise would not have happened I' assuming, but how do you differentiate from latent demand and induced demand? Where are the numbers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Where you create new capacity for cars, primarily from existing and u/c and planned suburban areas, those lanes will be back-filled by additional cars creating the effects previously described.
So how come a large majority of freeways outside of the major cities have freeways that flow fine? How come the Katy freeway flows fine during the day? How come I-40 in OKC flows fine years after having been widened?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
I am not suggesting that everyone walk, how absurd.

I haven't suggesting forcing a single existing car off the roads.

I have suggested that strategies be focussed on providing people other, better options, at a lower cost, primarily transit and commuter rail; along with some relocation of some people, whose homes are in danger from floods, w/priority going to areas that are the least cost-effective to service. The result over time is a modest uptick in transit/walking/cycling; which would have the same effect as the new lanes on the highways, because those new riders previously would have been drivers, and such their new choice freed up space on the existing highway at much lower cost.
"better options" is extremely subjective and many would argue what you are proposing is worse than more freeways. S where are your specific proposals on reducing congestion? What car centric cities like LA let alone Houston have had transit projects that reduced congestion? If trains reduce congestion why hasn't the Expo line removed cars from the 10 that had billboards advertising the construction of the expo line?

PS, many of the things you suggest, Houston is actively doing! Making more walk-able areas, building bike paths, building/planning new rail/BRT lines, planning for HSR, etc. Houston is also expanding freeways at the same time doesn't mean they aren't doing other things.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
The comparison is apt, no matter how often you jump up and down turning funny colours suggesting otherwise.

I compared it for land-use, density and modal split.

The suggestion that somehow lessons can't be learned from larger communities to smaller or vice versa makes no sense.

Of course they can.
No it isn't and they can't. To suggest such things reduces any credibility you had. It is borderline comical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
You haven't refuted any of the facts in the comparison......

There are a comparatively limited number of cities in North America where a comparison can be drawn.
Houston can be compared to Phoenix, possibly Denver, Atlanta, etc. Cities are unique and have their own problems, especially cities like Houston. Comparing Houston to a small suburb in Canada is a joke and there is nothing to refute after having read something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Y
But it doesn't matter, because instead of discussing the substance of the idea, you attack me, the messenger.
Except I haven't attacked you and no matter how bad you want that to be true it just isn't. I'm attacking you ideas and beliefs which I find to be extremely flawed and disconnected from the real world. I am apparently, by this thread, not the only one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
But you remain committed to evidence-free discussion.
I have many times. Here are some links spoon fed to you:

https://transfersmagazine.org/does-l...educe-traffic/

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/read...703-story.html

https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/CurrentProjects.aspx

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

https://www.wired.com/2016/04/wideni...-darnit-texas/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...ore-congestion

Yet with all of that I can say you haven't answered my questions and retort with nonsense and running circles. Here. We. Are. Again.
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2019, 9:25 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
I have no objection pothole filling.
this sort if mentality makes no sense to me. How can you be in favor of supporting car based infrastructure but not expanding it? Why have it if it sits congested all the time?
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2019, 9:28 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Induced demand is almost impossible to count....
Okay so you don't even know how prevalent induced demand is. Gotcha.

Yet somehow that is enough to determine a freeways gets no more lanes and commuters are forced to endure traffic hell, because, well, induced demand.

     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2019, 9:38 PM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
this sort if mentality makes no sense to me. How can you be in favor of supporting car based infrastructure but not expanding it? Why have it if it sits congested all the time?
That's easy.

Because removing it would then cause the need to replace all that existing capacity and incur a great financial cost.

Where maintaining it as is, is the least costly option.

There is no disagreement that you need to create new capacity to move people, as growth occurs.

The question is how those people should be moved.

How do you spend the least dollars to move the most people?

How do you alleviate congestion at the lowest cost with the least disruption?

The answer is invariably to remove 40 cars and replace them with one bus; or better still 400 cars with 10 buses or better still 1000 cars with one train, or better still 10,000 cars with 10 trains.

The incremental cost of that expansion of transit is lower, per person, than than the associated new lane-mile capacity on a highway.

***

Now, in a world of unlimited money falling from trees, I would certainly contemplate replacing the existing highway system with considerable more transit and fewer lanes of highway. But that is simply grossly impractical in scope and scale.

So the question is not whether to retain current capacity more or less; its where and how to add incremental capacity.
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2019, 9:42 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Latent demand, by definition, is cars using newly created capacity, because it was previously impossible or undesirable.
Latent by its definition means hidden.

Latent demand for traffic is demand that was already there but not satisfied. As with induced demand, have explaining to businesses why it is bad but I bet they will be happier with latent demand as it is far more likely to be impact than induced demand.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/latent

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
It looks identical to 'induced' demand.
They are two separate things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
It still means more cars backfilling the newly created capacity.
Only if enough lanes are not built to satisfy demand.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
They do, until they do not, no change in infrastructure causes a mass switch to driver/rider habits in a day, these thing accrue over time.
Due to growth which happens naturally over time by population expansion and a grocery list of other variables which aren't new freeways or lanes. Otherwise your statement is really not one at all which is becoming more and more typical.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
They do in fact account for such demand. Origin-destination models are a standard part of transportation planning. That you are unaware of this indicates you have never read a study on induced demand, nor have you read a transportation planning study, an environmental report etc.

If you had, you would know that model is present in all such work.
I do and have read many planning documents as transportation planning is a big passion of mine. That doesn't answer my question. I asked about what induced demand studies have this information factored in and if you really were a person of facts than you should have no problem providing such a study that contains this information.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
As noted above, you have read zero studies. These questions are routinely examined using cordon counts, speed monitors, origin-destination models, intersection capacity analysis. etc etc.
No they are not and I have provided links and information and now it is your turn. If I'm wrong I'll admit unlike you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
huh?

The train is a preferred model because it pollutes less per passenger. It also occupies much less land/space vs a highway moving the same number of people.

So yes, 'experts' are happy to see growth in demand which pushes expansion of train service.

The expansion of train service indicated, on a per capita basis, lower costs per capita to provide infrastructure, and lower levels of pollution.

The effect of a 2-track corridor of transit or commuter rail at grade or in a trench is an order of magnitude less than a 20-lane freeway or even a six-lane freeway.
Preferred model to whom? Transportation planners? So because freeways are a preferred model for transportation planners in tons of cities around the country that makes them right by your logic? Again, you are making statements that are subjective. Many might not find trains as their preferred transportation choice and for transit planners their are many reasons why they might choose a train over a freeway. Back up your statements for crying out loud. What freeway was dropped for a train?

As expected, you moved the goal post from induced demand being bad to induced demand only being bad for modes of travel I personally don't like for reasons I want to be true.
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2019, 9:46 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
The question is how those people should be moved.
No it isn't that easy and the government works for us, not the other way around.



***

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Now, in a world of unlimited money falling from trees, I would certainly contemplate replacing the existing highway system with considerable more transit and fewer lanes of highway. But that is simply grossly impractical in scope and scale.
Where rail costs can easily approach a billion per mile, costs is certainly factored in. When mass transit has fewer people, the efficiency argument quickly looses steam but yet we can compare the costs per mile which is a much fairer comparison than a per person measurement.
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2019, 10:02 PM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
Jesus Christ man you make it hard to respond because of the way you post. I must have missed the impact on property taxes you brought up so I'm guessing you're referring to property lost from ROW acquisition leading to less property tax? If not please explain.
I am not.

I am referring to the idea that new highway capacity creates more sprawl.

We more or less agree on this.

Now the question is, how much does sprawl cost to service?

Its not just the highway, its the local road, the sewer, the water, the additional school, library, community centre, garbage pick-up etc. etc.

Those costs are higher, per person, when properties are more spread out.

We could create endless different models for comparison, but let's try to keep it as simple as possible.

If you build a brand new house, in an established, somewhat central Houston neighbourhood, on 0.4 acres of lot.

The watermain is already there, no additional pipe under road is required.

The sewer is already there, same thing.

The electricity wire is there too.

So is the existing school, library, community centre etc.

If, the additional household caused any of these to be expanded, the library might only need 0.5 more staff, and the same sized lot.

ditto the community centre.

The fire hall might be one extra truck; but there would not be an additional fire hall.

Replace that with the new house in suburbia, on a one acre lot.

It requires all new pipes, and all new wires.

The amount of pipe and wire and pavement is 2.5x per person what exists on that central lot (1 acre vs 0.4)

Since there is no fire hall today, a new one must be added.

Since there is no school today, one must be added.

That creates incremental costs that adding 2 classrooms to an existing school or one truck to an existing fire hall do not.

Because servicing this household is more expensive per person, but they pay property tax at the same rate as other taxpayers, they don't cover their own costs.

That means property taxes must rise to hold services the same, or services must be cut to hold taxes down.

The house in the central area creates far less cost, which is fully covered by their property tax and may even come in below, essentially creating a profit or dividend for the City that could be used to improve service or lower taxes.

Quote:
I am not suggesting sprawl to stop and it won't stop regardless of freeways. Even cities like Vancouver(BC) that have not a single freeway in the city sprawl. Other more low density sprawl further.
Vancouver has/had a Greenbelt in place prohibiting sprawl beyond a certain point. The previous provincial government shifting the boundary allowing more sprawl.

This created more congestion and longer commutes just as I noted.

Since new freeways are verboten, transit is now being extended to those suburbs at great cost, after the fact.

Quote:
Sprawl is not mutually exclusive with freeways and how come rail causing sprawl is never an issue?
Next time you see a subway line built to a farmer's field, we can discuss the effects of rail on sprawl. Doubtless there would be such an effect, if rail were routinely extended beyond the edges of the urban region before any growth had occurred. This used to happen in the 19thC.

But it rarely, if ever, happens today.


Quote:
How can you prove this growth in Houston wouldn't happen without additional freeway lanes?
No one can prove a negative hypothetical.

Quote:
I support the sprawl and enjoy it. I will argue it offers a much better QOL than concrete jungles can.
I disagree with your preference, but it is just that, a preference, and you are entitled to that.

Quote:
So how come a large majority of freeways outside of the major cities have freeways that flow fine? How come the Katy freeway flows fine during the day? How come I-40 in OKC flows fine years after having been widened?
If a city doesn't grow, then the induced demand does not occur or only at a much lower rate.

Asking why a highway moves well in an an area where there are no/few people is rather peculiar, I think the answer is rather self-evident.

As is the answer to why highways move better outside of rush hours.


Quote:
PS, many of the things you suggest, Houston is actively doing! Making more walk-able areas, building bike paths, building/planning new rail/BRT lines, planning for HSR, etc. Houston is also expanding freeways at the same time doesn't mean they aren't doing other things.
I'm not suggesting these other things aren't happening. I am suggestion the proportions in the plan are not ideal. That a greater emphasis needs to go on transit etc., and less on highway expansion. Houston is not short of highways.

Houston can be compared to Phoenix, possibly Denver, Atlanta, etc. Cities are unique and have their own problems, especially cities like Houston. [/quote]

Houston is not that unique. Yes each city is modestly different, but the principles are the same.

A bus will always move people more efficiently than 40 cars etc etc. No matter the City, its size or geography.

You're asking me to compare Houston to other cities that all have very poor public transit utilization. That doesn't work if I'm trying to make a case that transit can work. I need to use a City as example where it does work. Not one where it does not.
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2019, 10:09 PM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
Where rail costs can easily approach a billion per mile, costs is certainly factored in. When mass transit has fewer people, the efficiency argument quickly looses steam but yet we can compare the costs per mile which is a much fairer comparison than a per person measurement.
Houston's LRT/Commuter rail costs are 1 billion per mile? I don't think so.

Toronto's costs are well below that, and we have vastly more expensive land.

***

And on what planet is per mile a fairer metric?

Its the cost per person; otherwise your hand is deep in my pocket and you are taking MY money that I earned and using MY money to support yourself.

You get the same transportation infrastructure budget as I do.

Its its (to make a number up) $1,000 USD per person, per year. That's what it is.

Now go see what you can buy for that.

You'll get a hell of a lot more buses/rail than highway, because you are occupying far less space (per person).
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2019, 10:19 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
We should have a club for people glowrock thinks are "holier than thou," etc. Very sensitive and emotional guy who throws these accusations around an awful lot.

As for the arguments for more freeways...definitely the sort of thinking that made Houston so extremely car-dependent, and will apparently keep that going.
You don't want to know my actual opinion of your right now, mhays. I'll just chalk your ridiculous comments about me up to a heated argument in a ridiculous thread on SSP, a community of which I've been part of since 2002 but have always realized that there are those people who simply aren't worth having discussions/arguments with.

And with that being said, this thread is officially CLOSED.

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
     
     
End
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:01 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.