Following up on Rex’ post yesterday, here’s yet another perspective on congestion.
Todd Litman up at the VTPI has produced two complimentary reports that revisit a lot of assumptions about how to cope with congestion (hint: widening roads isn’t necessarily the answer). Both are well worth the read.
7 responses to “Congestion Revisited”
One of the problems is that we have a highway engineer “silo”. They don’t really have to worry about the other parts of the auto system working.
So no one demands an evaluation of the impact of new capacity on sources and destinations of trips.
No one says your new capacity will mean a 5% increase in autos in downtown Portland and Lloyd Center so you need to plan for a 5% increase in long term parking. And the only location for that parking is a long way from a freeway exit so we need to add capacity to the street network to get those cars from the freeway to the new parking. And frankly there is no way to do that. So if we are going to add freeway capacity we need to figure out how to reduce the current trips from other locations by 5% in order to free up parking and local street capacity.
Instead the highway engineers just throw up their hands and say “that isn’t our problem”. And that is just one example. Most of projects have the “scope” of their evaluations even more severely restricted. For instance, the widening of I5 at Delta Park is going forward without even considering the real impact on I5 through the Rose Quarter.
The urgency behind Delta Park is more to get cars off the Interstate Bridge and cram them on land where it’s safer for motorists and easier on the aging bridge span since we are a long way from seeing a new bridge anytime soon. Not purely to reduce congestion.
One of the problems is that we have a light rail planners “silo”. They don’t really have to worry about the auto system working.
The urgency behind Delta Park is more to get cars off the Interstate Bridge and cram them on land where it’s safer for motorists and easier on the aging bridge span since we are a long way from seeing a new bridge anytime soon. Not purely to reduce congestion.
I don’t think that is true.
One of the problems is that we have a light rail planners “silo”. They don’t really have to worry about the auto system working.
That isn’t really true. For instance, light rail planners do have to worry about the operation of streets downtown and the plans for light rail consider the impact on those and other streets. Considerable amounts of time went into considering the impact on auto traffic of the Interstate Max line. The length of the trains, one of the fundamental issues of Max capacity, is almost entirely a matter of accomodating the auto system.
To further what Ross said, the new Transit Mall MAX alignment project includes a dedicated through-lane primarily for automobile use. This is adding considerable complexity and many millions of dollars to the project. To say that LRT planners are not considering automobile impacts is quite demonstrably false.
– Bob R.
the new Transit Mall MAX alignment project includes a dedicated through-lane primarily for automobile use. This is adding considerable complexity and many millions of dollars to the project.
It also reduces the capacity for buses on the transit mall, TriMet has no plans to move all bus service back to 5th and 6th. Page 36 on the downloaded version of the current TIP says:
Frequent service bus lines and the Yellow and Green MAX lines will serve on the Mall. Some other bus lines will be distributed on other streets such as Columbia/Jefferson and 10th/11th Avenues…
So, they are going to make downtown even worse for bus riders – having to transfer to/from 6, 15, 20, and/or 77 (some of the current crossmall routes) is bad enough. Making transfers even less convinent is only going to make riding transit more difficult.
The people already enraged by ‘liberal viewpoints,’ increased parking rates/times, and/or have a job where they have to drive in downtown are going to have to dodge buses on even more streets – not for 2 years, but permanently.
I haven’t even mentioned that C-TRAN is being kicked off entirely – even though their riders are paying $105/mo. to ride express routes like 105, 134, 164, and 177; have been since May 2005, while some TriMet riders are still miffed about the $6 increase in January, 2006.
I’ve said this before, but I think there should be a public vote on this – not on public transit vs. cars or buses vs. light rail – all these forms of transit are needed – but on if this alignment is really what people want.
Bob,
I guess you made nmy point with
“This is adding considerable complexity and many millions of dollars to the project”
That through lane on the new transit mall will be as useful to automobiles as the current 5th and 6th
big deal, big help for vehicle traffic??????
You know that was only included to pacify the property owers who know exactly what the current transit mall did to businesses along it’s route.
YES LRT planners are not considering automobile impacts.
In fact you know darn well they and yours delight in causing the congestion they do.