HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 4:05 AM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is offline
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
The whole, "induced demand" this is mostly just a convenient myth people use to oppose highways. Sure, if you widen the highway more people will use it, but those trips aren't people driving in circles, they are people going to work, going to the store, etc. They are contributing to the Economy and improving infrastructure helps grow the Economy. Yes, eventually it catches up again but at a higher overall level. The few examples NIMBYs like to use of why widening freeways doesn't work usually involve widening one section of road in a large road network. Obviously one small improvement to one part of the network isn't going to solve much as cars just flow from other routes to the newly widened one, the whole network has to be expanded.
Well, of course highways are a vector of economic and social development but when they're congested, they're hurtful to a city's economy. Hence why the solution isn't in widening them but offering better alternatives
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 5:34 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,949
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
Well, of course highways are a vector of economic and social development but when they're congested, they're hurtful to a city's economy. Hence why the solution isn't in widening them but offering better alternatives
Is there a better alternative for moving goods than highways?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 5:59 AM
Car(e)-Free LA Car(e)-Free LA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Is there a better alternative for moving goods than highways?
In many situations, electric freight rail would be. If certain trucking routes (ie. roads entering ports) we're priced according to demand, a lot of freight would shift, even if just for short distance (ie. Port of LA to the Inland Empire.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 6:16 AM
Car(e)-Free LA Car(e)-Free LA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
The whole, "induced demand" this is mostly just a convenient myth people use to oppose highways. Sure, if you widen the highway more people will use it, but those trips aren't people driving in circles, they are people going to work, going to the store, etc. They are contributing to the Economy and improving infrastructure helps grow the Economy. Yes, eventually it catches up again but at a higher overall level. The few examples NIMBYs like to use of why widening freeways doesn't work usually involve widening one section of road in a large road network. Obviously one small improvement to one part of the network isn't going to solve much as cars just flow from other routes to the newly widened one, the whole network has to be expanded.
It may be true that there is demand for these trips, and you can eventually build your way out of congestion, but at what cost (a 40 lane wide 405?). However, there are two flaws with that assumption:

1. Mobility should be priced absurdly low: If you price something way below its value, then it will be over used. Certainly, you're allowing more economic activity, but with diminishing returns. It's like a Soviet bread line. Low pricing doesn't necessarily encourage economic activity that wouldn't otherwise happen--after a certain extent, it just results in people being more casual and less efficient with their car trips (ie. Two small shopping trips rather than one big one.) Just like hospital emergency rooms, roads need some small fee to discourage utterly unnecessary trips that clog up the whole process.

2. If you build it, they will come:
That's not to say that demand is unlimited, because it is, but if you're investing in road infrastructure, people will drive more and development patterns will orient themselves towards roads. Conversely, if you invest in transit infrastructure, people use transit more, and development patterns orient themselves around transit. Essentially, whatever type of infrastructure you build better is what most people will use, and if you build roads, you aren't necessarily allowing more economic activity, rather than shifting people away from whatever form of transportation is not being heavily invested in.

3. People want automobile mobility specifically:
That don't. People follow the transportation path of least resistance. If you want to allow 40,000 more trips per hour along a certain corridor, you can build a 10 lane freeway for _10 billion or a 2 track railway for $2 billion. What you invest in is what people use, and roads have remarkably low performance per dollar compared to other forms of infrastructure, not to mention being more polluting and harmful to the urban fabric. Every time a road is built, an opportunity is missed to build a rail line that can transport far more people at a lower cost, with little pollution and minimal urban disruption. Opportunity costs are real.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 12:08 PM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is offline
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Is there a better alternative for moving goods than highways?
I don't recall saying highways don't serve a purpose like you're implying.

You're mistaking someone that's pro-transit for someone that's anti-highway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 9:34 PM
yakumoto's Avatar
yakumoto yakumoto is offline
I enjoy discussing issues
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: MEGATITS
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Is there a better alternative for moving goods than highways?
We don't widen highways to move more goods, you know better than that. We widen them with the sole intent to relieve congestion for rush hour commuters.
__________________
San Jose: God's gift to Urban Enthusiasts
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2017, 10:50 PM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Really? HSR2 line is only 119 miles in length for phase 1, and just 216 miles in length for phase 2. It'll only be saving a few minutes of travel time...

Just because a train can go faster doesn't mean it will in actual operations.
Windage losses and higher power costs usually limit HSR trains to a slightly lower speed. That's the reason hyper loops have become fashionable today in these discussions, there much lower windage losses in a vacuum.
Yes. Just look at China's HSR network. Design speed on the fastest lines is 380km/h, but actual operational speed is just over 300km/h (although they will be raising the speeds on the Beijing-Shanghai line to 350km/h next month).
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 2:50 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
I had no clue. Thanks for sharing this meme though. It helped me consider whether or not I should post something here due to the fear that someone will remind me I am posting my opinion, because again, I clearly forgot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 2:51 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
Widen the 5 for what exactly? the section in the central valley really isn't THAT bad in regards to traffic flow, besides the occasional annoying driver who insists on being in the center lane going 45 mph while everyone else is trying to go 80.The truckers tend to try to stay in the right lane and there aren't any problems really.

CAHSR might be a little......late... in the tech department but it should be ok. I wish it was a meglev though. Now THAT would have been cool.
There are backups along I-5 in certain locations and they seem random. A 6 lane freeway would ensure this wouldn't happen with exception of wrecks and stupid driver behavior.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 2:57 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
It's known that widening highways doesn't actually reduce congestion because of the induced demand principle.

The United States finally have a chance to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of rail infrastructure and they're seizing it. I think that's great.
Wrong. Induced demand does not exist. You have someone that needs to get to point a to point b. There is no new trip resulting because of a widened freeway. There is however growth and that's a good thing. If new growth is encouraged, than I can see your point. However that also happens with rail construction too and I don't see anyone screaming induced demand when that occurs or frequencies are increased.

Furthermore, these studies that lay claim to the induced demand argument never factor in whether other freeways that commuters might have used saw a drop in usage. 405 widening resulted a 20+ percent drop in local road traffic and the rush hour window was in fact shortened. I also vouch that they didn't add enough lanes because it only saw the trip time through the expanded corridor drop a minute, but it did drop. If they added 10 more lanes, it would drop considerably more so. Add 4 more HOV lanes each way and 3 new tolled lanes along the entire 405. Traffic would no longer be an issue there.

Expand other freeways, fix certain gaps with solutions that work for everyone, and improve commuter transit with park and ride stations.

If you have an issue with that than your issue is with sprawl and not the freeways themselves. I am a supporter of sprawl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 3:09 AM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is offline
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
Wrong. Induced demand does not exist. You have someone that needs to get to point a to point b. There is no new trip resulting because of a widened freeway. There is however growth and that's a good thing. If new growth is encouraged, than I can see your point. However that also happens with rail construction too and I don't see anyone screaming induced demand when that occurs or frequencies are increased.

Furthermore, these studies that lay claim to the induced demand argument never factor in whether other freeways that commuters might have used saw a drop in usage. 405 widening resulted a 20+ percent drop in local road traffic and the rush hour window was in fact shortened. I also vouch that they didn't add enough lanes because it only saw the trip time through the expanded corridor drop a minute, but it did drop. If they added 10 more lanes, it would drop considerably more so. Add 4 more HOV lanes each way and 3 new tolled lanes along the entire 405. Traffic would no longer be an issue there.

Expand other freeways, fix certain gaps with solutions that work for everyone, and improve commuter transit with park and ride stations.

If you have an issue with that than your issue is with sprawl and not the freeways themselves. I am a supporter of sprawl.
And that is exactly the problem with many Americans. Firmly implanted, good old 1960's mentalities in 2017. I bet global warming doesn't exist either. Sprawl is good because it destroys natural habitats. How dare these plants grow near my city?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 3:13 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Yeah i think the whole concept of induced demand confuses people more than it illuminates.

The way I always thought about is that there is X demand for trips, and expanding highways increases the capacity so more trips can be taken.

The reason to oppose highway expansion isn't induced demand, its that highways take up valuable urban space to move a relatively little amount of people. 1 lane of freeway can move about 2,000/hour vs 1 ROW of heavy raill which can move about 40,000/hr.
Even if more trips are taken, that's a good thing. More growth, more money spent, more taxes generated. I still don't buy that, however. Anecdotally, I have never taken more trips or know anyone who has as result of an expanded freeway. I've driven it just to see the freeway like I will once the I-5 projects are completed, but not widening the freeway and spending money on a new form of transit when our existing infrastructure is not responsible.

Car trips are the primary form of transportation and neglecting that going on some wild goose chase because we have transit advocates that want to be like Europe an area that was built well before the automobile is not good government. Expanding all freeways in Southern California and building new ones to alleviate the horrid traffic that exist is.

Transit will NOT solve this issue. That lie needs to be stopped right now. I love the rail system LA is building and use it daily. I commute redline and bike everywhere around LA. But the traffic problem is only going to get worse.

The only way to truly solve that without widening is to tear down parking infrastructure, tear down freeways, narrow roads, charge fees to enter the city centre, and I'm against everyone of those things because you are basically telling people how to live. Don't bring up well building freeways and supporting cars tells me how to live because LA is building tons of new bike and transit infrastructure. No reason they can't do the same with freeways.

Practically, I'm not going to argue with your point that is more efficient to move people via mass transit over freeways because that'd be silly. Of course that is the case. But some people(the majority really) want large yards, more square footage for their buck, and don't want to live in a concrete jungle. I myself have moved out of DTLA and am going to move further into the suburbs because I find it more relaxing there. There is also the fact some people would rather have the comfort of their own car rather than being packed like sardines and having to walk or get transportation sometimes to only have to switch modes(walk to bus to rail etc.)and then have to wait for it to arrive. You get in your car, it's there, ready to stop anywhere you want(not confined to predetermined stops or tracks), 24 hour access, customization, etc.

The benefits already outweigh the negatives of transit for most people. Cleaner technology and autonomous cars will even further lure people away from transit. Ride sharing already has and tons of transportation agencies have seen drops in ridership while driving is hitting record numbers. Even European countries are investing in some pretty impressive freeway projects. But again, I don't see the point of comparing Europe to the U.S. Completely different cultures and ideologies.

If transit is built and people naturally shift to that which results in traffic counts that warrant lane reductions or even total removals/downgrades of freeways than I'll gladly support that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 3:14 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
And that is exactly the problem with many Americans. Firmly implanted, good old 1960's mentalities in 2017. I bet global warming doesn't exist either. Sprawl is good because it destroys natural habitats. How dare these plants grow near my city?
What is wrong with you? I'm a millennial born in 1993. I believe climate change exists and is big problem. I also love plants and though I live in Los Angeles, I'm from Oklahoma and have around 50+ tropical plants I make multiple trips across the country to care for. Try again dude. Geeze.

For the record, yes, sprawl does destroy natural habitats. Your urban playgrounds do too. I'm willing to bet there is more nature and wildlife living in sprawled out suburbs than downtown Montreal or NYC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 3:21 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
The United States finally have a chance to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of rail infrastructure and they're seizing it. I think that's great.
We've always had the chance to build an HSR network. What are you saying by this statement? What are they doing other than talking about rail? There's no guarantee even the California HSR will be completed and there talking about a 2030 opening date the entire system not being completed until the 2050's? Lol okay.

Look at compact the western portion Europe is and the population density in these cities with a region of nearly 400 million vs. a country that has individual states bigger than most countries in the continent and that should give you a little explanation as to why it's happened there.

As far as the rest of world, where exactly else are you referring to? I want to know where you're comparing the U.S. to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 3:24 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
If you think 65 billion is expensive, try a budget for a an SF-LA maglev... 150 billion would be the ground floor if I had to guess.
Yes, but honestly, I think that'd be a better investment than outdated HSR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 3:26 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-t...nduced-demand/

Ask LA and Toronto if their 12-lane highways work.
They work a hell of lot better than if they were six lanes. They need more lanes. It's simple math.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 3:28 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakumoto View Post
We don't widen highways to move more goods, you know better than that. We widen them with the sole intent to relieve congestion for rush hour commuters.
There are many freeways in L.A. that are congested well outside of rush hour windows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 11:15 AM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is offline
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,196
You're entitled to your opinion but there are so many wrongful statements in what you are saying that I won't even start a debate with you. Like I said, 1960's mentality from someone born in 1993.

Consider this: densification also means more growth, more money spent and taxes generated with a much smaller footprint and easier transit implementation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 12:22 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 5,280
California's geographical and demographic specifics are virtually identical to the wildly successful AVE system in Spain. So I have no doubt it would be wildly successful in California.
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener. <><><><><><>IMPEACHMENT NOW!

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 9:33 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
California's geographical and demographic specifics are virtually identical to the wildly successful AVE system in Spain. So I have no doubt it would be wildly successful in California.
Roughly 2.5 million passengers per year travel between SFO and LA or San Diego. The time involved in getting center city to center city shouldn't be much more than flying with all the airport nonsense these days. HSR could easily be more convenient and comfortable than flying. I bet it could take much of that market share from the airlines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:22 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.