|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Sept 3, 2010 21:34:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 3, 2010 22:35:54 GMT -8
Transportation professionals generally agree on this; mass transit projects do not reduce congestion. Mass transit does many good things for a city, but alleviating traffic is not one of them. Road utilization tends to fall into a stable equilibrium because of induced demand. A decrease in traffic on a roadway tends to lead to more people using the roadway (and consequently more traffic again). The converse scenario also applies. The opening of a new mass transit may cause a short-term decrease in traffic but the system will quickly return to equilibrium. Consider cities with extensive transit systems such as New York. Even they have bad traffic. Your links show people are trying to use Metro's findings against them. This is unfortunate because these findings actually validate their work; they are promising only what they can deliver and nothing more. As transit advocates, we should therefore be emphasizing that transit "cures" congestion by providing means for people to get from place to place without dealing with traffic. For a good analysis of this issue, I recommend this post from Human Transit.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 4, 2010 12:19:13 GMT -8
My comment form the la times blog story:
It seems to me the whole point of this blog post was to (1) imply that the subway is supposed to ease traffic, and then (2) incite outrage that the subway will not be able to do this.
The goal of the Westside Subway has never been about easing traffic. It is about giving people options for getting around. Some people love their cars, but many many of us (millions of us, I suspect) would gladly give up their cars if they could get to work faster and more reliably by train.
Posted by: Joel | September 03, 2010 at 05:06 PM
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 4, 2010 12:40:04 GMT -8
I prefer the term 'latent demand.'
With respect to roadways, for a large number of people, driving is the first option for people. They drive when the see or sense that there is enough capacity. Some people choose to shift their trip times, or to delay to another day. Thus, many folks remain at home or, or later at work, and many times choose to forgo contact with others or whatnot. Some of those folks don't feel they have a choice and choose to drive regardless of roadway conditions.
When a transit line opens up, it creates another viable transportation option for those previously stuck in traffic or at home. Some choose transit, but, those that switched from autos to anpother mode end up openning up roadway capacity that they once filled. That newly opened capacity is then refilled by those that were previously at home, or those that previously tried to avoid those congested periods.
That is latent demand.
Induced demand, in my opinion, refers to the whole transportation network - transit and roadways.
Perhaps 'latent' and 'induced' are one in the same.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Sept 4, 2010 13:01:28 GMT -8
Yeah, the above posters are all correct.
If you design a road for 10,000 cars, then you will get 10,000 cars (so you move 12,000 people, based on average car occupancy)
But if you then design a subway to run underneath the road, you will still get 12,000 on the road... but will be able to move 10,000 people on the train.
Now more people can take the trip.
How often do you think to yourself "theres a great restaurant in long beach....but eugh, I dont want to deal with the traffic"? By providing a second mode, more people chose to travel.
The bonus is that theres a time period where you have more capacity than demand.
So, original capacity: 12,000 people. New capacity, with train: 22,00 people Demand: 16,000 trips.
The subway means 4,000 more people get to travel, but theres also excess capacity, so you can social engineer by restricting road capacity, say, down to 8,000 people, and shifting another 4,000 on to the train which has more space.
The road will ALWAYS be congested (Paris, London, Moscow....they all have heavy traffic, even with their extensive rail systems), but you get to move more people and make peoples lives better (less pollution, less wasted time), safer).
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 4, 2010 13:50:00 GMT -8
The LA times is just trying to agitate people, notice the headline? I am not sure where they are heading, I seem to be reading pure AP articles. If the goal is to reduce traffic then congestion pricing is the best option in my opinion - it works well in many places and could work here perfectly. People will resist, but they resisted the parking meter. If you want to drive 20 feet to go shopping for twixt bars during rush hour, there should be a fee for taking up road space.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 4, 2010 14:07:52 GMT -8
For some reason it's been the standard disclaimer for the Metro rail-transit projects to state that "We do not intend to reduce traffic." This was often emphasized for the Expo Line as well.
Part of the reason for this disclaimer is to attract more federal funds for the Metro rail projects by suggesting that rail transit will bring growth, hence traffic. Another reason is simply that growth is expected anyway.
But I'm more optimistic. It's a simple math that if you take cars off the road by putting people in trains, there will be less traffic, at least in the near future.
Also, buses tend to cause traffic congestion if the bus headways are too short, as they need to frequently stop. This is experienced on heavy bus corridors like Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. I remember when there was the bus strike, traffic on Vermont was much better. This is not to say that buses are bad and not needed; as many people depend on them, we really need them, but it's good to point out that rail transit doesn't have the problem of congesting the roads by frequent stops in front of cars.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 4, 2010 14:33:50 GMT -8
... And there is a simple and immediate way of eliminating traffic congestion. Bring the price of the gasoline to $10+ per gallon with a gas tax. You will see how fast the cars will disappear off the road. As an added bonus, rail transit can be built with the money made and even the social security can be saved.
The only reason why we have traffic congestion: free roads & cheap gas.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 4, 2010 15:25:46 GMT -8
Also, buses tend to cause traffic congestion if the bus headways are too short, as they need to frequently stop. This is experienced on heavy bus corridors like Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. I remember when there was the bus strike, traffic on Vermont was much better. This is not to say that buses are bad and not needed; as many people depend on them, we really need them, but it's good to point out that rail transit doesn't have the problem of congesting the roads by frequent stops in front of cars. Gokhan...you're crazy. Traffic was better during the MTA strike? Really? Buses cause traffic? Imagine if those 50 + riders (look at how populated those 754 Rapids and 204 buses are) and imagine if those people were driving their single passenger automobile cars than sitting in a bus. I take the Big Blue Bus 10 everyday to Santa Monica. Imagine if that bus wasn't there. I wouldn't dare take the 720...but I would drive. You're adding another car to the road.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 4, 2010 17:09:35 GMT -8
Traffic was worse during the MTA strike. The worsening congestion was most prevalent on the 101. The least affected major highway was the I-5, probably because Metrolink was still operating. Study.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 4, 2010 17:58:46 GMT -8
LAofAnaheim,
Metro planners told in the subway public meetings that too many buses cause traffic jams. It's simply because the buses need to stop and merge in front of traffic. So, this is not even coming from me, but I also personally observe the situation when I drive on crowded bus corridors of Vermont and Wilshire.
This is one of the good reasons why rail transit is needed in heavily traveled corridors. You can't simply put arbitrarily many buses on a busy street to make up for lack of rail transit without causing significant traffic jams.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 4, 2010 19:35:10 GMT -8
Depends on the street. Certainly, Wilshire Blvd cannot handle many more buses.
But be careful, don't let the folks down in Orange County think that the 15-30 minute bus service on eight lane wide streets contributes to traffic congestion, just to give an example.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 5, 2010 14:40:11 GMT -8
I can't believe LAObserved took this shot at the subway. Here is my emailed response: Mr. Lacter,
In your blog, you wrote:
"The main reason for spending mega-billions of dollars on underground rail has been shot down. ... While there's obviously a lot more to the report, the whole point of having a subway is reducing congestion. If that's not going to happen, why bother? I would suspect the community groups who are raising concerns about subway construction are going to have a field day with this."
The point of a subway is not to ease congestion. The point of a subway is to provide an alternative means of getting across the city. It will give people the ability to get across the city in 25 minutes instead of 1-1/2 hours.
Metro has never advertised the subway as a way to ease traffic congestion. New York, Paris, London and Tokyo are not traffic free. But they are working, functional cities. Without subways, they would not be able to function. And without subways, we will not be able to function in the coming decades.
~~~~
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 5, 2010 17:20:49 GMT -8
I was walking in the 7th street / Metro Center station today on the way to Union Station and the In the Works poster for the Foothill Extension said "To bring traffic relieve to the San Gabriel Valley". Metro does shoot itself in the foot by using the "bring traffic relieve arguement", which doesn't exist and upsets people who finally see the Metro open. I think the same happened with the Orange Line extension when people wondered why traffic didn't disappear magically with it's opening. I forgot my camera but will try to take a photo next time.
I think Metro uses this to win over the NIMBY's for their projects. So, if they make that claim (knowing it won't open)...who's at fault?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 5, 2010 21:19:17 GMT -8
The term "traffic relief" does not mean traffic will go away.
Transit does have an effect of reducing traffic, but traffic is increased by other factors. The net effect is that traffic increases in spite of transit. If all transit does is keep congestion at its current levels, it will have done a considerable amount of good.
Imagine a scenario in which someone has overeaten. They can provide relief for themselves by undoing their belt buckle, but they remain stuffed.
The point is that relief means just that.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 6, 2010 8:35:12 GMT -8
Spokker, I agree with you; and I'm sure most of the people who frequent these boards also understand what you're saying. Just say that to the "layman" off the streets and when they hear "traffic relief", they think no more traffic.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 7, 2010 8:09:06 GMT -8
My concern isn't traffic: it's the year 2035 ridership numbers. 24k new trips for Alternative 1, and less than 28k trips for Alternative 2? Those numbers are ridiculous. Even the Green and Gold Lines get more riders than 30k.
My concern is cost-effectiveness, which is at $35.98 for Alt 1, and $33.58 for Alt 2. That's more than double the Regional Connector Fully Underground Alternative. This could impact the project's ability to compete for New Starts. It could also be bad for public sentiment.
Don't get me wrong: I support this project 100%. That's why I'm so concerned about these numbers: I would hate for them to jeopardize this subway getting built.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 7, 2010 14:27:10 GMT -8
My concern isn't traffic: it's the year 2035 ridership numbers. 24k new trips for Alternative 1, and less than 28k trips for Alternative 2? Those numbers are ridiculous. Even the Green and Gold Lines get more riders than 30k. My concern is cost-effectiveness, which is at $35.98 for Alt 1, and $33.58 for Alt 2. That's more than double the Regional Connector Fully Underground Alternative. This could impact the project's ability to compete for New Starts. It could also be bad for public sentiment. Don't get me wrong: I support this project 100%. That's why I'm so concerned about these numbers: I would hate for them to jeopardize this subway getting built. Joel, the numbers are correct. The new trips don't refer to the ridership of the line. It means people who are not using transit right now and who will start using transit when the project opens. The actual ridership is much higher. In comparison the new transit riders for Expo Phase 2 is only 11,000, about a third of the subway numbers. Note that the ridership models must be approved by FTA. They went back and forth so many times between Metro and FTA during the Expo Phase 2 days when they were trying to have the model approved. It took a long time and effort to have the model approved. FTA won't accept arbitrary numbers. Again, in comparison, Expo Phase 2 new transit trips is 11,000 and the combined Phase 1 & 2 ridership is 65,000. 30,000 new transit riders is a lot for the subway, and it corresponds to a combined ridership of probably more than 200,000. Already 60,000 people are riding the buses on Wilshire alone and you will take at least 40,000 of them in addition to the 30,000 new riders.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 7, 2010 14:49:22 GMT -8
Joel, the numbers are correct. The new trips don't refer to the ridership of the line. It means people who are not using transit right now and who will start using transit when the project opens. The actual ridership is much higher. Again, in comparison, Expo Phase 2 new transit trips is 11,000 and the combined Phase 1 & 2 ridership is 65,000. 30,000 new transit riders is a lot for the subway, and it corresponds to a combined ridership of probably more than 200,000. Already 60,000 people are riding the buses on Wilshire alone and you will take at least 40,000 of them in addition to the 30,000 new riders. While I agree with you that number of new transit riders is not the same as number of new subway riders, I don't put nearly the faith that you do in the numbers. Models are educated guesses, and they don't always get it right. Metro expected to have 200,000 subway riders by the year 2000, and they've never reached that number. Anyway, "combined ridership of probably more than 200,000" still only translates to "new subway ridership of >= 45,000". I still hope we can do better than that. And the cost-effectiveness numbers (compared with TSM) are very bad. The best alternative (Alt 2) is only half as cost-effective as the Regional Connector. This project will only get built with continuous sustained support of the people of Los Angeles. Right now, the media is pummeling this project. The latest salvo is this discussion on NPR. Transit supporters need to get out front on this issue and make sure to get on the blogs and the talk shows, and make sure people understand the benefits of this absolutely critical project.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 7, 2010 15:20:40 GMT -8
Here is Mark Lacter's response to my email: Thanks for the note. I must say that the argument for having a subway (and with it major expenses and considerable inconvenience) will have to go beyond it being an alternative means of transit. For someone like me, who doesn't usually go downtown, the benefits of a subway are questionable, at best. Same with many of my Westside friends. The notion that we should all get on board for the benefit of others really doesn't make much sense. Also, all the cities you mention have had extensive subway systems for many years, and are not decentralized in the way that L.A. is. Big difference. And my response to Mark Lacter: Thank you for the response. Metro is also planning and building $22 billion worth of highway projects all over Southern California, such as new carpool lanes and freeway widening.
"The notion that we should all get on board for the benefit of others really doesn't make much sense."
We don't all benefit from freeway expansion, but we all have to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 7, 2010 15:29:56 GMT -8
I think that the people of Los Angeles County do understand the benefit of a expanded mass transit system (despite what the LA Times says) including the Purple line extension and other rail lines – and that is why a super majority voted for Measure R.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 7, 2010 15:38:49 GMT -8
Joel, the numbers are correct. The new trips don't refer to the ridership of the line. It means people who are not using transit right now and who will start using transit when the project opens. The actual ridership is much higher. Again, in comparison, Expo Phase 2 new transit trips is 11,000 and the combined Phase 1 & 2 ridership is 65,000. 30,000 new transit riders is a lot for the subway, and it corresponds to a combined ridership of probably more than 200,000. Already 60,000 people are riding the buses on Wilshire alone and you will take at least 40,000 of them in addition to the 30,000 new riders. While I agree with you that number of new transit riders is not the same as number of new subway riders, I don't put nearly the faith that you do in the numbers. Models are educated guesses, and they don't always get it right. Metro expected to have 200,000 subway riders by the year 2000, and they've never reached that number. Anyway, "combined ridership of probably more than 200,000" still only translates to "new subway ridership of >= 45,000". I still hope we can do better than that. And the cost-effectiveness numbers (compared with TSM) are very bad. The best alternative (Alt 2) is only half as cost-effective as the Regional Connector. This project will only get built with continuous sustained support of the people of Los Angeles. Right now, the media is pummeling this project. The latest salvo is this discussion on NPR. Transit supporters need to get out front on this issue and make sure to get on the blogs and the talk shows, and make sure people understand the benefits of this absolutely critical project. Well, Joel, it's been well-known that subways are not cost-effective. This is nothing new. That's why we had Zev's initiative banning the of use of local funds on subways. Nothing would be built around here if we didn't have that initiative. These are the cost-effectiveness numbers: Downtown Connector: 17 Expo Phase 2: 24 Subway Alternative 2: 34 I think these numbers perfectly make sense. No one expected the subway to compete with Expo Phase 2 in cost-effectiveness. And no one expected Expo Phase 2 to compete with the Downtown Connector, as it is four light-rail lines combined. So, I don't understand why you are bringing this up all of a sudden as if it is surprising. The Westside subway will be built. Wilshire is our heaviest corridor and we have an existing subway line there that is immaturely terminated. So, despite the low cost-effectiveness, it's still worth it given the circumstances, as the current configuration terminating at Western makes no sense and there is still a lot of ridership in the Westside. This is exactly why, because of the low cost-effectiveness, subways should only be built in (a) very high ridership areas (like Wilshire Blvd) and (b) where there is no right-of-way for at-grade or elevated rail (like on Wilshire Blvd).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 7, 2010 15:45:09 GMT -8
Here is Mark Lacter's response to my email: Thanks for the note. I must say that the argument for having a subway (and with it major expenses and considerable inconvenience) will have to go beyond it being an alternative means of transit. For someone like me, who doesn't usually go downtown, the benefits of a subway are questionable, at best. Same with many of my Westside friends. The notion that we should all get on board for the benefit of others really doesn't make much sense. Also, all the cities you mention have had extensive subway systems for many years, and are not decentralized in the way that L.A. is. Big difference. And my response to Mark Lacter: Thank you for the response. Metro is also planning and building $22 billion worth of highway projects all over Southern California, such as new carpool lanes and freeway widening.
"The notion that we should all get on board for the benefit of others really doesn't make much sense."
We don't all benefit from freeway expansion, but we all have to pay for it. In response to Mark Lacter, he is absolutely right that not everyone wants to go to Downtown. That's exactly why we need many more rail lines. Eventually, in several decades from now, I think we will have enough lines for people to go to the majority of attractions, not just Downtown. People will utilize the Crenshaw and 405 lines to travel north - south between Wilshire and Expo east - west lines as well. And Expo Phase 2 will already take people to Santa Monica, an undisputedly popular destination. Of course, if you don't want to leave the Westside, the subway can be taken between Westwood and Beverly Hills for example, not just Westwood and Downtown. And the argument of I don't want to pay for others' benefit is not only selfish but also ignorant. All the roads we use are built by the money of others. Perhaps they should start charging for the roads installing toll booths everywhere so that people like Mark can realize nothing is really free.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 7, 2010 16:57:53 GMT -8
Interesting talk show and interview with Mieger (subway project manager) and public phone calls. It wasn't pummeling the project or being negative. They were just asking what else can be done other than the subway. Obviously, the subway alone will not be enough to solve LA's transit woes; so, it was a more-than-fair discussion.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 7, 2010 17:24:04 GMT -8
Well, Joel, it's been well-known that subways are not cost-effective. This is nothing new. Only if you play by the government's rules and use their definition of cost effectiveness. Using more reasonable definitions existing riders would count for much more for a variety of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 7, 2010 17:38:15 GMT -8
Well, Joel, it's been well-known that subways are not cost-effective. This is nothing new. Only if you play by the government's rules and use their definition of cost effectiveness. Using more reasonable definitions existing riders would count for much more for a variety of reasons. Well, it's all relative. A cost-effectiveness of $34 is not that expensive. Expo Phase 2 is costing naturally less at $24 because it's light-rail. Downtown Connector is a subway but costing only $17 because of very high ridership. It's fair. You need to have a definite scale to compare different projects. Otherwise, someone in a small town could claim that their maglev project is more cost-effective than our subway and therefore should be in higher priority for federal funding.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Sept 20, 2010 13:22:54 GMT -8
The Times' position on mass transit projects has improved markedly over the past few years, and it was only a month or two ago that I saw an editorial endorsing Villaraigosa's 10/30 proposal. Whatever else we can say about this study I don't think their publishing of the story is an attempt to sow doubt.
As for the study results, I can't give them much credence. Did they consider the scores of thousands of Inland Empire commuters who work in areas such as Santa Monica or Century City? These people can't use Metrolink because of the lack of good transit between Union Station and Santa Monica, so they drive. Or they may vanpool, but even that's 1/5 or so of a vehicle per person added. With the Westside Extension, vastly more IE commuters would have the option of riding Metrolink, and then the subway to reach work. This would reduce congestion not just in the city limits but all along the routes they now have to take in cars or vans.
Finally, "reducing congestion" isn't the primary purpose of mass transit. Generally cities with very good subway systems *are* highly congested, and the need for a transit system usually becomes apparent as the congestion increases. Yet it does not necessarily reduce such congestion. Nobody would say the streets of Manhattan or Tokyo aren't congested, and their transit systems rank among the world's finest.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Sept 20, 2010 13:29:46 GMT -8
Depends on the street. Certainly, Wilshire Blvd cannot handle many more buses. None of the east-west arterial streets can handle it. Trying to solve these problems by re-routing the buses will work about as well as when you try to do it in your car.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Sept 20, 2010 13:39:43 GMT -8
This project will only get built with continuous sustained support of the people of Los Angeles. Right now, the media is pummeling this project. The latest salvo is this discussion on NPR. Transit supporters need to get out front on this issue and make sure to get on the blogs and the talk shows, and make sure people understand the benefits of this absolutely critical project. I wouldn't worry about the NPR discussion too much. Did you all notice the following sentence in the lead blurb: Projected population increases will all-but negate any traffic relief from people leaving their cars in favor of the subway. That's hardly a valid reason not to build something. Rather it suggests that we need to expand the transit system just to keep the congestion, as it is, in check. The only way to reduce congestion, other than crushing gas taxes, is to slow or halt population growth, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 20, 2010 13:44:24 GMT -8
None of the east-west arterial streets can handle it. Trying to solve these problems by re-routing the buses will work about as well as when you try to do it in your car. Wilshire Blvd. from West L.A. through Miracle Mile is now congested like in Manhattan. Buses are therefore useless along this or parallel boulevards. The only solution is to have a subway as the trunk, coupled with a system of local buses and taxis that connect to the subway and can get people the final mile from the subway to their destinations.
|
|