Showing posts with label Congestion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congestion. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

A New Congestion Paradigm in LA

I don't get why we continue to focus on congestion in cities as something we need to "fix".  Repeatedly we focus on congestion as if when it were solved our problems would be over.  But congestion is the sign of a successful city, and curing it as Detroit has doesn't seem to be the right answer either. 

But that doesn't really matter if we have created a better system of mobility and access.  Back in 2011 CNU was in Madison and Joe Cortright was having a discussion with Tim Lomax of TTI about their mobility report which measures hours of delay.  Confused by how they measured delay and thinking about my own situation, I noted out loud that I didn't count.  I never saw any of the congestion on the roads because as a BART rider, I wasn't a part of it...yet we had one of the WORST ratings.  It's because we as a society are often only talking about congestion on roads, and I wasn't on the road, but I had more reliable access to my job than anyone on the road.

This is partially why "congestion" in its current use is bad metric for deciding transportation investment.  We don't account for moving people around more efficiently, just cars.  And there are a lot of people that don't seem to count.

But this new plan being discussed in Los Angeles is going to show the benefits to thinking about mobility in a different way.  The old way of "congestion" would increase according to the environmental report.  The Level of Service Standard that has been used for environmental reporting would increase intersections receiving an E or F congestion score from 18% to 36% under this plan that includes increasing dedicated lanes for buses and bikes.  

In most places this is a red alert to widen the roads and speed up the cars. But under the newer more mobility focused measure of average vehicle miles traveled the plan would increase VMT to 35 million miles per day instead of 38 million which would come if the plan were not implemented.   

3 million miles per day means a lot when we're talking about emissions and mobility, showing that just because a few more interesections are more congested, providing mobility for more people has great benefits.

Of course the opposition still lives in the old paradigm and is upset. Richard Katz, a former member of the MTA board still worries about "congestion". 
"Taking away lanes, which creates congestion, to try and force people to choose a different method of transportation other than the car, is a horrible way to solve a congestion problem," he said. "Why? It creates more congestion … and people don't respond well to being forced to do things."
I would argue that we're forced to drive cars.  Our system should give us opportunities that don't involve driving.  But we know how that works in most places.  LA doesn't have more room to expand the roads, so there has to be another way.

Others are also upset at not being able to focus on congestion anymore.
"Cars are just going to sit there," said Don Parker, a board member with Fix the City, an advocacy group fighting the plan. "So labeling it a mobility plan is just not reflective of what the plan actually does."
Of course what he doesn't mention is that if cars just sit there, it's less likely they can hurt people in collisions at high speed.  Or that they aren't creating greenhouse gasses.  Or that people are finding more sustainable means of mobility.

While we don't know where the plan will eventually end up, this is an exciting move that we'll hopefully start to see in other cities over time.  Thinking less about "congestion" which we've been trying hard to fix since we started building freeways over 60 years ago will benefit everyone more.  Instead, let's think of how we can get the most people to the places they want to go.  Car optional.

Monday, July 11, 2011

The Headline Doesn't Match the Story

Ok, can someone tell me if I'm going crazy here? First the misleading PI headline:
Study: Surface-transit would clog regional traffic
Then the FIRST paragraph:
The state's plans for a tolled deep-bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct would bring slightly more traffic congestion to downtown Seattle than a surface-transit concept favored by Mayor Mike McGinn, according to an analysis in the tunnel project's Final Environmental Impact Statement
So the tunnel would bring more traffic to the surface streets right?  Then later on:
With no place for all 110,000 vehicles to go, speeds would decrease and fewer drivers would travel through Seattle's city center, resulting in less traffic, according to an analysis in the environmental assessment.
The idea is that surface transit would make through traffic harder, and people would be annoyed and say I'm not going to make that trip.  That is a great result!  But that headline suggests that it would clog traffic all together when that is not the case.  I'm guessing some headline writer at the PI thought it would be good, but it totally shows some serious windshield perspective.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

TTI Congestion Lacking

Ok, I get it. TTI says we as a country are a congested place. But who's fault is that? It's certainly not mine. Riding BART almost every day I never see the congestion. But why? Because I chose to live somewhere I can avoid it. Many other people around the country make that choice as well. I realize some people don't. But where is the calculation of money saved on transit systems or cities that promote walkable and bikeable neighborhoods that operate efficiently and allow people to leave for work at the same time every day for 20 years and never see a change. We know the congestion issue is a big one because most people drive. But should we be talking about congestion in terms of cars alone? Perhaps in cities that don't have transit. But is it a bit disingenuous to say that the Bay Area is one of the most congested when in parts it isn't, or people have ways to avoid it if they so choose? I think it might be.

Monday, February 2, 2009

On Locking Grids

Given many cities don't have grids anymore, I find it interesting that gridlock is still in the lexicon, specifically because if we did have a grid system, its likely there would be less lock. And to my current point in the last post about congestion and its endless war, I think the editors of the Rocky Mountain News have it wrong that the whole purpose in life of transportation funding should be to keep travel speeds at current levels through increased road and transit capacity. That's hardly a laudable goal given the number of people that will likely live in Denver in 20 years and how much more VMT that would mean, more than likely wiping out reductions in emissions.
It's not only FasTracks that is short of funding, after all. Revenue for the upkeep, improvement and expansion of metro roads and highways is also far below what would be needed to preserve today's travel speeds over the next 20 years. Unless lawmakers and civic leaders think FasTracks alone can prevent future gridlock - a naive hope for reasons we'll explain - they should make sure that any future ballot issue includes more than a FasTracks bailout.
I think there should be money for maintenance and repair, but beyond that, Fastracks is just a regional commuter system. There needs to be funding for local circulation and greater frequency that will help spur denser walkable neighborhoods. Don't get all scared at density either Denver. Maybe it means a few granny flats or maybe it means high rises. Depends on the neighborhood.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Is Obama's DOT Team Just Setting Up for Wall Street?

It's an interesting question and I really don't know enough about these folks or their backgrounds to make a judgment. I do know that none of these people have been at the forefront of the push for greater transit or livable streets. Perhaps they have mentioned it in passing but they likely don't see it as most important. Most DOT types only care about a question that shouldn't be at the top of the list. Congestion. And usually the only answer to them is road capacity. But the problem is that its kind of like the War on Terror, there is no specific end and no one really knows what congestion eradication means. If we were to eradicate congestion, it just means we're probably wasting space or have too much capacity that is only used in peak hours.

H/T Anonymous poster that I can't credit because they posted anonymously.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Traffic Costs Transit

This article in WTOP is a little old but it discusses the importance of clearing paths for public transit and people. While a lot of people will say that congestion just means we should build more roads, places like downtowns just can't add roads, so you need to add capacity. If we don't wake up and realize this, the cost will be huge.
The Metro transit agency adds an average of 10 buses a year just to maintain the same rush-hour service. Fairfax County public schools adds 20 to 30 buses a year - even when enrollment is flat - because of increased travel times. Officials say routes that used to take 30 minutes now take 50 minutes.

The additional vehicles on the road only make congestion and pollution worse. They also cost businesses and taxpayers money. "This is the perfect illustration of the cost of congestion," said Ronald F. Kirby, transportation director for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. "And those costs are passed on to customers and taxpayers."