[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 9818 wrote:

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. And that’s why as a city grows, cars and roads become a less sustainable mode of travel. Congestion increases, even if you try to accommodate it with new roads, because each additional person requires even more of a share of road capacity than the person before did. I think your dismal science term for it is “diminishing returns.”

So you have to start to change both the development and the transportation modes that serve it, which go hand in hand of course and feed into each other. If you just keep adding low-density, road-dependent development to meet population growth, you’d end up with suburbs stretching into West Virginia. Those people aren’t going to be able to get around by car any faster even without any congestion, simply because they live too damn far away. They’ll still spend an hour or two on the road every day, doesn’t matter if they are going 60 mph on congestion-free roads.

True enough. Without increasing density, it is difficult to develop transit systems. The problem is that many people do not want to live in dense areas. People don’t want to raise kids in apartments. So there is a tradeoff… Do people want to limit geographic growth and bear the costs of increasing density; do people want to limit population growth in an area, thereby reducing economic opportunity and local asset values and forcing population growth issues to other areas; or do people want let things go on as they are and bear the increased congestion and infrastructure costs? I don’t think there is a political consensus in this area and I think proponent of various positions tend to discount these inherent tradeoffs.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 9744 wrote:

I can think of lots of ways to spend the money they would spend widening I-66 to encourage cycling: build overpasses/tunnels to reduce grade crossing, install HAWK signals, launch a driver (and cyclist) education campaign, increase cycling tax credits (there’s already a small one for employer-provided cycling stipends, similar to the public transit one – hands up if anyone gets it), build more cycletracks, expand CaBi.

I don’t see these as trade-offs with expenditures on transportation infrastructure.
1) Get rid of at grade crossings: How many opportunities are there for this: Lynn and Lee highway? Any others?
2) HAWK signals: Good idea; should be standard on all trail crossings of busy roads. Is lack of funding what is causing these not to be installed?
3) Driver education: Good idea. Area drivers treat everyone like crap, not merely cyclists and pedestrians. Should be done regardless of spending on infrastructure.
4) Subsidies for cyclists: We are trying to target drivers who refuse to switch to Metro for a subsidy. Do you really think that these folks will switch to cycling for a similar subsidy? Cycling is practically free compared to the costs of driving and parking already. For these subsidies to be effective there have to be a substantial number of commuter whose preference ordering goes from 1) Driving over cycling, subsidized Metro to 2) Subsidized cycling over driving, subsidized Metro. I contend that there are few people with such priorities. The likely cyclists are those who are already taking metro, because these people already have relatively short commutes and demonstrate a reluctance to drive.
5) Cycletracks: I’m looking forward to my upcoming rant on comparative cycling facilities. Suffice it say, my preferences are in order: sharrows, same direction bike lanes, multiuse trails and last cycletracks. I find street riding with auto traffic safer than trail riding. Cycletracks are the worst of all worlds: a two way trail in a street. The Custis trail in Rosslyn is a glorified sidewalk. I think you are much safer in the normal traffic lanes on 15th Street and Pennsylvania Ave. The accident reports in this forum tend to bear this out. Road paint associated with on-street bicycle facilities is hardly a big expense and not really a tradeoff when looking at improving infrastructure.
6) CaBi: I don’t have a problem with CaBi if it is not too heavily subsidized. If it is a gateway drug for some future commuters, that’s all to the good. However, CaBi’s TIGER application states that mostly it displaces people walking, taking Metro, and taking cabs. Very little displaces private cars.

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 9811 wrote:

Hey! You beat me.

Okay, I did a little calculating too, and yes, it increased but then fell to 1982 levels – meaning overall it kept up with population growth since 1982, just as I said.

Yet congestion has greatly increased since 1982. So that discounts population growth outpacing roads as a cause of the increase in congestion in that period. (With the caveat that the DC data collection region has added a few outer counties in that time).

Now divide daily vehicle miles traveled by population for each year, giving you the average number of miles each person travels in a car. That has grown by 47% since 1982. That’s a huge increase.

So if I’m doing the math right, it looks to me like the problem isn’t population growth, but the fact that people simply drive more.

But population growth almost implies per capita growth in person miles if all that growth means an expanded developed area (i.e. it is all not increased density). It’s hard to model, but as the developed area grows, the distance between home and some interesting destination for the average person must grow, implying greater travel per person.

[DismalScientist]

@DismalScientist 9801 wrote:

1) Cite please?

I’ll give my own cite: http://mobility.tamu.edu/files/2011/10/complete-data.xls

The data show that freeway lane miles per capita increased by 20% from 1982 to 1990 and have since fallen to 1982 levels Per capita arterial lane miles have fallen 30% from 1982 to 2010.

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 9797 wrote:

Look at the numbers from the Texas Transportation Institute.

No, I’m saying I’d much rather have more Clarendon than more freeway.

And I understand your point about traffic diversion. It’s a legitimate point, though I’m not sure it’s as big a factor as you do. And as I think someone mentioned, without systemwide improvements like widening the bridges, widening I-66 just moves the chokepoints so that you have a 3-lane traffic jam instead of a 2-lane one.

1) Cite please?

2) Not sure I agree with you on this, but it is a matter of opinion.

3) Exactly my point. I would much rather have a three lane traffic jam on I-66 than a two-lane traffic jam on I-66 and a traffic jam on Washington Blvd. The argument is even better if they don’t expand the bridges, because that way you don’t get added traffic from making easier to actually get from DC from Fairfax by car.

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 9793 wrote:

We could keep going with arguments in the extreme though, like this: Arlington would be paradise if I-66 were 14 lanes wide.

False dilemma. They may not be stupid. They could be simply misinformed, or relying on faulty or incomplete knowledge, or acting on their own interests to the expense of others. And their views don’t prove anything anyway. Pavement affects congestion a certain way regardless of how people think it does or doesn’t.

As you know, individuals sometimes act in their own rational self-interest in ways that result in hurting their interests when their individual actions are taken collectively.

1) I certainly don’t advocate widening I-66 outside the walls.

2) Stupidity and ignorance is observationally indistinguishable. I don’t want to argue that I am smarter or more informed than people making decisions in what I presume is their view of their self-interest.
The argument explicity states that people are not acting at the expense of others, but rather are acting against their own stated self-interest.

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 9789 wrote:

It’s not just growth that matters, it’s what kind of growth.

Car-dependent growth certainly adds more traffic. If you look at the numbers, the DC area has more or less kept up its road-building to match population growth. What has grown is miles traveled by car per person. That’s because they have to live further out and they live in car-dependent communities.

Sure, it’s not your house. But remember, if the house next to you goes but yours ends up next to a highway, you get nothing.

The DC area has certainly not kept up with road building to match population growth. Not that I am advocating it do so. All I am saying is that expanding I-66 within the walls is the least-cost way (especially to Arlington) of expanding the transportation network. Furthermore, the deal restricting I-66 has only exacerbated its detrimental effects on Arlington.

As far are the development statement, I was responding to a comment suggesting that Westover would be destroyed by development caused by widening 66. baiskeli, you live across the freeway from me. Do you really think that development associated with widening the highway is a greater threat to neighborhood than the potential Clarendonation caused by development spurred by Metro?

P.S. My house already is only a block from the highway. Traffic on Washington Blvd bothers me a lot more than traffic on I-66.

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 9743 wrote:

If you would care to point any out, I’d be happy to discuss them with you.

Given the apparent unanimity of opposition to my position, it must be obvious to all that relaxing restrictions on transportation networks only leads to greater congestion through induced demand. In fact this argument in the extreme says, it leads to lower throughput in a significantly short period of time that people see this is the primary net effect. Yet there are people from the outer suburbs that still advocate paving the world, even though this leads to less throughput. I can only infer from this series of arguments that people from the outer suburbs are inherently stupid. Or… Perhaps adding more pavement does not, in fact, increase net congestion.

[DismalScientist]

First step: Is your wheeled centered? If not, undo quick release, center wheel and tighten QR.
Second step: What kind of brakes do you have? Some brakes may require moving the brake relative to the frame. Others require adjusting the relative strength of the springs.
Third step: Denial: yell obscenities at the offending component.
Fourth step: Acceptance. Rubbing brake pads mean getting more exercise. More exercise means consuming more beer.

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart Of course it is beating a dead horse. Just like we are doing in the other thread.:rolleyes: BTW, glad to hear you are healing well.

I think baiskeli has summarized this correctly. When I (rarely) drive, I often slow and sometimes stop at such crosswalks because my experience as a bicyclist leads me to conclude some of my “colleagues” are sometimes reckless. I worry that this might be misinterpreted as a courtesy stop, leading to potential collisions with other drivers if the cyclist/pedestrian crosses. What do you suggest is appropriate driver etiquette in this situation?

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 9736 wrote:

I must say we’ll have to agree to disagree. The actual throughput of persons/hour would decrease because of the logjam effect. And likely more people would bail out to local Arlington streets, further exacerbating your daily commute.

If the actual throughput were to decrease, then the net cost of driving would increase by widening the road. I think there are some logical inconsistencies in your implicit transportation model.

[DismalScientist]

Growth in the area causes more traffic. If interchanges are available in areas where people want to get off and on a freeway, traffic is likely to be congested around those interchanges. Is this a function of the highway, or growth in commercial and residential areas with access to transportation? If growth is restricted in one area, will it just go to another area? Do you think you can find political support for limiting growth in historically fast growing area in Fairfax county and farther out? Particularly considering how limiting growth will affect property values?

Freeways do not cause increasing traffic on parallel roads unless there is commercial and residential development along those roads and the freeways allow access to those roads.

Westover is in no way endangered by more cars induced by traffic on i-66 or otherwise. The only danger it faces in the distant future is being Clarendonized. Obviously, that can occur as easily by Metro as by increases in highway capacity. But don’t worry, I’m sure that my pro-Smart Growth neighbors that are trying to limit development around the East Falls Church Metro station will keep that from happening.

As far as houses being destroyed by development, it normally leaves the previous homeowners with a big wad of money in their pockets, so that is fine by me.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh: I agree with this. In general, it is appropriate to raise the costs of driving alone relative to transit, carpooling, telecommuting and biking alternatives. Generally all the alternatives are already subsidized: There is a heavy rail transit system through the corridor, for which many employers offer a subsidy; Many employers offer preferential parking for carpoolers; Similarly, telecommuting is encouraged. Besides racks and showers, I don’t know how to subsidize bicycling. (Maybe they can buy my N+1st bike!)

IMHO, The I-66 deal that Arlington got into in the 1970’s got into offers the worst of all world because they tried to solve a global problem with a piecemeal solution. So what have now is a freeway that splits Arlington in half (although it is well-designed to minimize the ill effects) but whose restrictions tend to lead to more traffic on local Arlington streets. The purpose of this deal was to keep Arlington from having to pay the road costs of Fairfax commuters to Washington by raising these costs to commuters. The problem is that that the restrictions have apparently not controlled the growth of these commuters; and Arlington bears these costs.

The solution to the global problem of getting less driving can’t simply be addressed by restricting capacity on one road. This just squeezes the problem elsewhere. The damage to Arlington was done when I-66 was originally built. IMHO, building it to its full width within the walls doesn’t substantially add to the damage. Furthermore, it can limit the unintended consequences of the original restrictions.

[DismalScientist]

I suppose my snarky response to the ‘opposition’ should be: “I assume you favor putting HOV restrictions on all freeways in the area, since that will reduce the amount of driving. That will clearly make this area the bicycling and transit-riding paradise that it is meant to be. Furthermore, this effect will reduce traffic on secondary roads.”

[DismalScientist]

@mstone: No I don’t drive on 66 during rush hour. I observe it from the trail. Let me clarify: I-66 is not jammed inside the beltway during rush hour in the direction of the HOV restrictions; it is restricted. The traffic congestion on I-66 inside the beltway is not causing the traffic moving to Arlington Blvd, etc. The HOV restrictions are.

[Author]

Posts