Transportation for America has a new campaign: “My Commute Sucks“. The idea is to tell Congress to rethink America’s failed transportation policy as part of the next Re-authorization Bill:
Tell Congress: “My commute sucks and it’s not getting any better. Stop pouring billions into a broken system. Transportation shouldn’t be an expensive, dirty burden. Fix it, clean it, make it work!”
18 responses to “Channeling your Road Rage”
Stop pouring billions into a broken system. Transportation shouldn’t be an expensive, dirty burden. Fix it, clean it, make it work!”
JK: GREAT!!!!
It is time to recognize that the billions spent on rail has been a complete waste.
Light Rail has never reduced congestion anywhere and, in fact, increases congestion because it takes money away from measure that actually reduce congestion: increasing road capacity in sync with demand increase.
We increase water supply with demand increase.
We increase sewer capacity with demand increase.
We increase electric capacity with demand increase.
We increase telephone capacity with demand increase.
Why not roads?
If you can’t build your way out of congestion, why do rail people claim that rail will build our way out of congestion?
PS: you can build your way out of congestion!
See fhwa.dot.gov/planning/itfaq.htm
Thanks
JK
We increase water supply with demand increase.
Tell that to someone living in the southwest quadrant of the nation, Jim.
Tell that to someone living in the southwest quadrant of the nation, Jim.
You mean how they’re constantly negotiating for more water, and starting to build desalinization plants?
The Coastal Branch of the California Aquaduct just opened in the 1990’s for example, because they needed to get more water to Southern California. That’s just one example though.
JK:Light Rail has never reduced congestion anywhere and, in fact, increases congestion because it takes money away from measure that actually reduce congestion: increasing road capacity in sync with demand increase.
ws:The entire interstate system was billed as the solution to reduce congestion on streets.
Nothing will solve the enigma of congestion – hopefully we can promote close proximity of “goods and services” to homes, expand roadways where necessary, and build a good transit system.
I was referring to the fact that you can’t increase the supply coming out of, for example, Lake Powell.
Desalination in CA? Really? I did not know that.
PS: you can build your way out of congestion!
See fhwa.dot.gov/planning/itfaq.htm
JK’s link results in a DNS error. The corrected link is here:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/itfaq.htm
The document itself isn’t exactly a stunning refutation of the idea of induce demand — it’s about as wishy-washy as can be, and passes the buck quite a bit.
The document itself isn’t exactly a stunning refutation of the idea of induce demand — it’s about as wishy-washy as can be, and passes the buck quite a bit.
JK: At the time I put in on DebunkingPortalnd, it struck me as a well balanced explanation.
Thanks
JK
Desalination in CA? Really? I did not know that.
The Carlsbad plant I think just cleared it’s last EIS, and I know was mentioned as breaking ground by the end of the year, and starting operations to serve North San Diego County by 2012. There are more planned for along the California Coast, some of which are being funded by Vegas and Phoenix so that they can free up water rights that California currently uses.
They also opened the new San Elijo Reservoir in 2005 IIRC. Basically it’s a new lake (since you can’t really make an existing one hold more.)
Back to transportation though, San Diego is also cited often as a city that decided they were going to build their way out of congestion, and have done a great job of at least keeping up with it. They found a funding source (1/2% sales tax) and splitting it to 1/3 freeway projects, 1/3 transit projects, and 1/3 local access which can include smart growth planning, bus stops, filling potholes, etc. Most audits have shown their funding split is between a 60/40 and 50/50 split for roads vs transit, depending on if you consider a bus pullout a transit or road improvement.
They’re not done, but they’ve untangled the I-5/I-805 interchange, improved I-15 travel times significantly, removed almost all congestion from Miramar and Mira Mesa Blvds, and generally planning for where the growth will happen.
The region has also built out an LRT system with more track miles than the MAX, and are continuing to expand it. They’ve had 41 miles of Coaster commuter rail since 1995, and a 22 mile diesel light rail line that opened just over a year ago.
Yes, their wide freeways and stuff may seem counter-intuitive, but they’re also now looking into restoring streetcar service to the Uptown neighborhoods, as well as extending their LRT to serve the airport also after the Mid-Coast Corridor is completed. They’re also making a streetcar-like bus loop in the UTC neighborhood (high rise neighborhoods built around a mall in the suburb of La Jolla) called the Super Loop. Much cheaper per mile than Portland’s streetcar, with almost all the same features except overhead wires and rails. (They’ve discussed upgrading it once funding is available to a true streetcar system as well.) They call their plans a total transportation system, not focusing on any one aspect but improving them all.
Portland is frequently cited in their airport studies as a model for airport ridership to downtown, but their airport is much much closer, and located near a major Naval training site, so it would likely end up with even higher ridership than the Red Line.
I’m not saying that we should be trying to widen the Banfield or build the Mt Hood Freeway or I-505, but there are things we could do small things (interchange reconstruction of I-5 @ the Fremont Bridge, the current Delta Park project, auxiliary lanes where there’s space and demand, etc) to improve traffic flow. Not all road improvements are a waste of money, just like upgrading a bus line to a MAX line isn’t a waste of money. We just have to make sure we’re finding funding, and spending money in the right places.
“The entire interstate system was billed as the solution to reduce congestion on streets.”
And how much has the population grown since the interstate highway system was first envisioned? Particularly in Oregon, highway dollars have been raided and siphoned off for transport modes where the users are under or not directly taxed while needed highway capacity has not kept up with growth. The primary failure of transportation policy is not creating a multi-leg funding stool that directly amasses directly taxing the bicyclists and implements a transit fare structure that better reflects the true costs of constructing and operating the service. Motorist paid highway and fuel tax dollars only ought to be used for roads, and nothing else.
Terry Parker:
There was massive congestion on highways even in the 50s/60s with much lower populations today.
Congestion is an unsolvable equation. We can only hope to make it better – and yes that means road projects where necessary, in conjunction with transit and good planning/land uses.
If you want to create a truly free market transportation system, you’re going to find that automobile ridership will be very expensive. Not to mention that all modes should have equal access to federal funding sources (the interstate system got 90-100% federal assistance for capital construction, to be paid back in years time through the Highway Trust Fund).
It is only fair that we apply the same approaches to transit – that new transit projects get federally backed financing at the same percentages as highways – to be paid back in years time from user fees.
My Commute Sucks because I have go to work to make enough money to pay for the lavish public transit projects certain people want.
There should be an award for most highly subsidized federally funded transportation project.
Apparently SeaPort Air might be a contender. You CAN purchase a ticket between two of it’s five participating fields for as low as $49.00. But US taxpayers right now are contributing another $750.00 to your flight. One estimate is that every seat would have to be filled at the luxury rate (199.00) to break even. Stimulus, anyone.
Light Rail has never reduced congestion anywhere
So, you’re certain that no one has EVER decided to take light rail for a trip which they would otherwise drive for? Or, if you’re speaking in constant terms, the problem is that the amount of possible motorists isn’t constant–for every driver that decides to take light rail instead, there’s often going to be a new one that takes their spot. Moreover, would money that doesn’t get spent on light rail really go to roads? My understanding is that at least some of it is dedicated to transit projects.
Why not roads?
Because new capacity takes up a lot more room than new capacity for the other things. Which requires more land and disrupting more livelihoods. In addition, it can also result in more pollution and additional congestion on other roads if they aren’t also expanded.
why do rail people claim that rail will build our way out of congestion
At full use (and I’ll admit probably most light rail systems aren’t close to that, though some NYC subway lines might be), a rail line can carry much, much more people than a road lane containing vehicles with one, maybe two, occupants.
that new transit projects get federally backed financing at the same percentages as highways
Earl Blumenauer has actually argued for that. But I would prefer that we go the other way and reduce highway funding (I know its a little late for that though).
Oh, and if my commute sucks its because the MAX Yellow Line should speed along I-5 and not go through the slow Interstate Ave street jogs.
Jason McHuff“Earl Blumenauer has actually argued for that. But I would prefer that we go the other way and reduce highway funding (I know its a little late for that though).”
That’s fine, as long as the transit modes are competing fairly, and one is not given an advantage over the other.
“That’s fine, as long as the transit modes are competing fairly, and one is not given an advantage over the other.”
And to compete fairly with no advantage, both the federal and local dollars for transit modes must come from taxes and fees assessed on transit users – NOT by raiding highway funds and using gas tax revenues paid by motorists, which also includes the gas tax revenues that make up the Federal Highway Trust Fund.
One other note:
“Transportation shouldn’t be an expensive, dirty burden”
Especially to taxpayers who do not use a specific mode of transport – like streetcars and bicycle infrastructure; but currently are still expected to subsidize the dirty construction and operational costs of an “expensive” streetcar system along with subsidizing the construction of overpriced bicycle infrastructure for freeloader bicyclists who pay no direct tax or fee to use it.
Terry Parker:And to compete fairly with no advantage, both the federal and local dollars for transit modes must come from taxes and fees assessed on transit users – NOT by raiding highway funds and using gas tax revenues paid by motorists, which also includes the gas tax revenues that make up the Federal Highway Trust Fund.
That’s fine, assuming automobile users pay their direct and indirect costs to society.
Speaking of which, do people think obese people should pay for their costs, and what role does it play in regards to the automobile?:
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/Obesity/economic_consequences.htm
Obesity accounts for 10% of all US Medical expenditures! Texas accounts for some of Medicaid and Medicare costs from obesity attributed costs (table 2 on the link).
Comparing this to bicycle riders, are they not helping reduce these entitlements and related health care costs down? What is the reward for biking, knowing that you are saving money for the government, but are essentially being told to drive because cheap skates like you don’t want to fund thinks for bicyclists?
I worded that last post terribly. Hopefully you can understand what I meant…
Why not roads?
Because new capacity takes up a lot more room than new capacity for the other things. Which requires more land and disrupting more livelihoods.
What if we can fit improvements into existing ROW, or the ROW of willing landholders? Would that satisfy you that improving roads isn’t always a bad thing?
The Going St/I-5/Fremont Bridge southbound interchanges could be improved to allow a cleaner split between I-5 and I-405, while improving access from Going St. It obviously isn’t the only solution, but sometimes this was the one interchange screwing up I-405 all the way to US-26.
No ROW required. Would that be so bad?
How about new road capacity connecting downtown Vancouver to Jantzen Beach and North Portland along the existing rail ROW? No houses demolished.
If we wanted to get really creative we could trade development rights over a widened I-5 in the Rose Quarter for ROW, and maybe give some FAR breaks to the land owners in exchange for building a freeway under them.
Yeah, they have to rebuild, but there are non-cash incentives that might entice the owners to want to build an easily freeway accessible building. It looks like only 1-2 square blocks of existing buildings would be in the way, and we could start capping some of the east side I-5.
Not to mention, it could potentially be an additional anchor for the east-side streetcar.
Sorry if this is too off topic, but it seems like a valid way to start improving the roads we have at minimal negative impact to the neighbors. Capping the freeway with buildings seems like a nice way to hide them away, and it’s been done before. It’s not very expensive.