“There has not been a single case anywhere in the world where new roadways solved congestion”

[Slick Vik]

I was reading an essay by an urban planner that was arguing against the toll way going through a major park and he stated this

“There has not been a single case anywhere in the world where new roadways solved congestion. If they can name one city that saw lasting effects of congestion relief from a new or even an expanded freeway corridor, I’ll cede that it is possible the Trinity Parkway will accomplish what they say. Until then, I know of no such case study.”

Thoughts?

http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2012/06/lets-have-a-debate-urban-blogger-in-dallas-raises-tough-questions-about-trinity.html/

[ToryGattis]

I think *anybody* who drove the old I10 west of the loop will agree that the new version today is a far superior - and less congested - experience.

[Houston19514]

I was reading an essay by an urban planner that was arguing against the toll way going through a major park and he stated this

“There has not been a single case anywhere in the world where new roadways solved congestion. If they can name one city that saw lasting effects of congestion relief from a new or even an expanded freeway corridor, I’ll cede that it is possible the Trinity Parkway will accomplish what they say. Until then, I know of no such case study.”

Thoughts?

http://transportatio...t-trinity.html/

That seems to be the new favorite piece of mythology constantly trotted out by "urban planners".

It is complete and utter nonsense.

Of course, in cities that are growing, both economically and by population, traffic will continue to grow and eventually fill the expanded space.

Should we stop adding flights at our airports because they will just fill up like the current ones did?

Should we stop allowing construction of new restaurants in our city because they will just fill up with people like the current ones did?

Should Igloo not add to its Katy warehouse because it will just get filled up like the current one?

Should Rooms to Go not add to its huge west side building because it will just get over-filled like the current structure?

Should we stop building new school buildings because they will just get overcrowded like the last ones we built?

We should surely stop MD Anderson from building new facilities out in the Katy area because they will eventually get over-filled with cancer patients.

And we must stop the construction of any new office buildings! To paraphrase a fraudulent "expert": There has not been a single case any where in the world where a new office building solved a shortage of office space.

[Slick Vik]

I think *anybody* who drove the old I10 west of the loop will agree that the new version today is a far superior - and less congested - experience.

It's still congested

[livincinco]

It's still congested

Still congested, but not even close to how bad it was before the expansion. Imagine the old I-10 with the additional demand due to the new development in the area.

And no, I do not agree that the development would not have occurred if the freeway hadn't been expanded.

[ig2ba]

It's still congested

Way to respond to a claim that nobody made!

[Slick Vik]

Still congested, but not even close to how bad it was before the expansion. Imagine the old I-10 with the additional demand due to the new development in the area.

And no, I do not agree that the development would not have occurred if the freeway hadn't been expanded.

One thing I don't understand about that expansion is why were the tracks ripped out

[KinkaidAlum]

The real problem is that while I-10 is certainly less congested, it wont be for much longer. It's already more congested than when it first opened.

Why?

Because it has encouraged even more growth out on the Katy Prairie. Katy, Cinco Ranch, Fulshear, etc... are exploding with growth and it's just a matter of time before I-10 becomes just as congested as it was before expansion.

What then? Add more lanes? Where? Double deck it? Good luck with that when it fronts some of the most expensive land in the area.

[jgriff]

Doesn't matter if it's still congested. A 6 lane congested highway moves more people than a 3 lane congested highway. That being said, currently the Katy Freeway is much better than it was before reconstruction.

[ToryGattis]

One thing I don't understand about that expansion is why were the tracks ripped out

Because the extra right-of-way for the freeway would move far more people than any commuter rail would, especially the HOT lanes in the middle.

Space was kept for "future rail" in the Westpark corridor, shrinking the Westpark toll road to 4 very congested lanes, while there are no plans at all for rail in the corridor for at least the next decade or two. Far better would have been using that RoW for some HOT lanes like the Katy freeway, and filling it with commuter buses, vanpools, and carpools.

[kylejack]

I-10 expansion definitely relieved a ton of expansion, but then that was a pretty extreme expansion. 20 lanes! And I don't know how long it will be before it's bad again.

[livincinco]

The real problem is that while I-10 is certainly less congested, it wont be for much longer. It's already more congested than when it first opened.

Why?

Because it has encouraged even more growth out on the Katy Prairie. Katy, Cinco Ranch, Fulshear, etc... are exploding with growth and it's just a matter of time before I-10 becomes just as congested as it was before expansion.

What then? Add more lanes? Where? Double deck it? Good luck with that when it fronts some of the most expensive land in the area.

You're making assumptions about the degree that I-10 expansion has encouraged more growth on the Katy Prairie. Dramatic growth has continued in The Woodlands even though I-45 is more congested than I-10 and that freeway has experienced no expansion. What is common between those two areas is that you have significant growth in jobs that are closer to the residences in both cases.

I'd be curious to see actual data to confirm or disprove, but I would argue that the vast majority of people that are moving onto the Katy Prairie work in either the Energy Corridor, Memorial City, or Westchase and the huge amount of office construction that's occurring in those areas tends to support that.

[kylejack]

I-10 expansion definitely relieved a ton of expansion, but then that was a pretty extreme expansion. 20 lanes! And I don't know how long it will be before it's bad again.

er, ton of congestion. brain fart.

[Slick Vik]

Because the extra right-of-way for the freeway would move far more people than any commuter rail would, especially the HOT lanes in the middle.

Space was kept for "future rail" in the Westpark corridor, shrinking the Westpark toll road to 4 very congested lanes, while there are no plans at all for rail in the corridor for at least the next decade or two. Far better would have been using that RoW for some HOT lanes like the Katy freeway, and filling it with commuter buses, vanpools, and carpools.

1 car without right of way moves more people than 1 train with right of way?

[ToryGattis]

1 car without right of way moves more people than 1 train with right of way?

No, two lanes (and that RoW probably added more lanes than that) moves more people than commuter rail, most especially if those are HOT lanes with buses, vanpools, and carpools. Remember also that the lanes move people 24 hours a day. Commuter rail is only full a handful of hours each day, and even that's a big assumption given that less than 7% of jobs are downtown and the rail would have dropped people off north of the bayou!

[kylejack]

No, two lanes (and that RoW probably added more lanes than that) moves more people than commuter rail, most especially if those are HOT lanes with buses, vanpools, and carpools. Remember also that the lanes move people 24 hours a day. Commuter rail is only full a handful of hours each day, and even that's a big assumption given that less than 7% of jobs are downtown and the rail would have dropped people off north of the bayou!

But it takes pressure off of the freeways during those critical rush hours.

https://sphotos-b.xx...983357129_n.jpg

Tory, what commuter rail systems in this country are you referring to that shut down during the middle of the day?

[mfastx]

I do agree that the Katy freeway expansion was a good project. Things are much better now than what they used to be. That being said, things better be a lot better now, considering we spent about $3 billion on that one stretch of freeway.

My point is that while I encourage aggressive investment in our freeways, I'd also like to see that same kind of investment in public transit. I'm not talking about just rail alone, but an investment in our whole system. Perhaps if we invest in public transit the same way we invest in freeways, future investment in freeways won't need to be as astronomical.

[ToryGattis]

But it takes pressure off of the freeways during those critical rush hours.

https://sphotos-b.xx...983357129_n.jpg

Tory, what commuter rail systems in this country are you referring to that shut down during the middle of the day?

Not shut down - just riding mostly empty. Buses in HOT lanes also take pressure off, and can be used by cars the rest of the day too.

[kylejack]

Not shut down - just riding mostly empty. Buses in HOT lanes also take pressure off, and can be used by cars the rest of the day too.

Both trains and freeway lanes have busy hours and less busy hours.

[ToryGattis]

Both trains and freeway lanes have busy hours and less busy hours.

Trains serving downtown are pretty much only going to get much utilization at rush hour. Freeway lanes can be used by anybody going anywhere at any time of day - which gets back to my original point about the RoW moving many more people as freeway lanes rather than commuter rail.

[kylejack]

Trains serving downtown are pretty much only going to get much utilization at rush hour.

How sure are you about that? Red Line inside the city gets plenty of use all day, and not everyone works M-F 8-5. Considering just the Medical Center, there are nurses, lab techs, and doctors working all hours, coming and going all hours of the day.

[Slick Vik]

Trains serving downtown are pretty much only going to get much utilization at rush hour. Freeway lanes can be used by anybody going anywhere at any time of day - which gets back to my original point about the RoW moving many more people as freeway lanes rather than commuter rail.

What about the gargantuan costs of highway expansion and maintenance? Rail may have a high implementation cost, and even then in a flat land like Houston, unless there is a bridge or tunnel built, the costs are relatively low outside of land acquisition costs, but once it's in service, it costs less to maintain a rail service against a highway over time.

I don't understand why road projects can get passed without any information to the public until they are completed, but for any public transit expansion, there are meetings galore and then pressure from county commissioners, threats from lobbyists and implied threats from the legislature.

Also there is the environmental benefit of taking cars off the road.

[ToryGattis]

What about the gargantuan costs of highway expansion and maintenance? Rail may have a high implementation cost, and even then in a flat land like Houston, unless there is a bridge or tunnel built, the costs are relatively low outside of land acquisition costs, but once it's in service, it costs less to maintain a rail service against a highway over time.

I don't understand why road projects can get passed without any information to the public until they are completed, but for any public transit expansion, there are meetings galore and then pressure from county commissioners, threats from lobbyists and implied threats from the legislature.

Also there is the environmental benefit of taking cars off the road.

I would dispute that. I don't have hard numbers, but it definitely costs less to maintain a strip of concrete than a track *and* many dozen rolling stock rail cars. And it would get even worse if you look at the taxpayer cost per user (since that concrete moves a lot more people).

Road projects have plenty of informational meetings for public input from the earliest design stages.

Part of the reason for lack of conflict regarding roads is that everybody knows they will get plenty of use. White elephant roads are very rare. Toll roads can also generate enough $ to pay for themselves. Rail generates conflict because it is an extremely intensive use of taxpayer dollars (over the entire life of the line, not just construction) with a very uncertain utilization.

The environmental benefits are only if the trains run very full around the clock. I've seen data in the past that the typical commuter rail line, with normal utilization patterns, actually can emit more overall per rider because of all the semi-empty trains running around and the diesel or coal-based power plants driving them.

[ToryGattis]

How sure are you about that? Red Line inside the city gets plenty of use all day, and not everyone works M-F 8-5. Considering just the Medical Center, there are nurses, lab techs, and doctors working all hours, coming and going all hours of the day.

Main St. line is a local LRT, not commuter rail. You are correct that it gets great utilization, although it's a little misleading because much of the passenger traffic is forced transfers from local bus lines as well as a parking shuttle for the TMC Smithlands. Still a worthwhile investment overall, IMHO. I am quite concerned the new lines will not perform anywhere near as well.

[Slick Vik]

Main St. line is a local LRT, not commuter rail. You are correct that it gets great utilization, although it's a little misleading because much of the passenger traffic is forced transfers from local bus lines as well as a parking shuttle for the TMC Smithlands. Still a worthwhile investment overall, IMHO. I am quite concerned the new lines will not perform anywhere near as well.

I believe the two lines that aren't being built, University and Uptown, would've performed extremely well. Ironically, the three that are being built right now are going to poor areas, thus the total lack of outrage (cough cough Afton Oaks cough cough).

[Slick Vik]

I would dispute that. I don't have hard numbers, but it definitely costs less to maintain a strip of concrete than a track *and* many dozen rolling stock rail cars. And it would get even worse if you look at the taxpayer cost per user (since that concrete moves a lot more people).

Road projects have plenty of informational meetings for public input from the earliest design stages.

Part of the reason for lack of conflict regarding roads is that everybody knows they will get plenty of use. White elephant roads are very rare. Toll roads can also generate enough $ to pay for themselves. Rail generates conflict because it is an extremely intensive use of taxpayer dollars (over the entire life of the line, not just construction) with a very uncertain utilization.

The environmental benefits are only if the trains run very full around the clock. I've seen data in the past that the typical commuter rail line, with normal utilization patterns, actually can emit more overall per rider because of all the semi-empty trains running around and the diesel or coal-based power plants driving them.

"The congestion relief argument is also used by SANDAG to justify adding and expanding Managed or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes ("transit") to existing highways. On this topic, SANDAG noted: "projects that are capacity-related such as HOV lanes and Managed Lane systems provide for improved quality of travel and livability and sustainability, in line with the 2050 RTP goals and policy objectives."

As urban planners and transportation engineering experts now clearly recognize, HOV and Managed Lanes are synonymous with highway capacity increases, which is the antithesis of sustainability and does not constitute true transit. In fact, the Independent Transit Planning Review (ITPR) panel, a group of transportation experts who reviewed the 2030 RTP, noted the following with respect to Managed Lanes and SANDAG policy:

Managed lanes are primarily a highway solution to mobility, not a "transit first" approach. The dramatic increase in freeway capacity that managed lanes provide will perpetuate auto-oriented development and reduce transit’s competitiveness.

Sprawl development requires significant infrastructure investments, which are ultimately paid for by taxpayers, and often homeowners and renters in sprawl areas. For example, studies show that sprawl and related road widening projects increase local road lane-miles by 10%, annual public service costs by about 10%, and housing costs by about 8%. Altogether, these costs add an estimated $13,000 per dwelling unit.3 School travel costs are another example of how sprawl-based highway development increases public costs. School busing costs average about $640 per student-year, and represent 5-10% of typical school budgets. It is well known that these costs are higher, even in some cases twice as high, in rural areas.4 According to the County of San Diego, additional public service costs (roads, sewer, water, schools, parks, etc.) associated with residential development require an estimated $1.42 in expenses to the public for every dollar such projects generate in tax revenues, and that such costs are 74% greater for low-density semi-rural development.5 In short, sprawl development does not pay for itself with increased property tax revenue, but rather induces a magnitude of public service costs that are ultimately paid for by San Diego residents."

http://www.transitsandiego.org/transitsandiego/pdf/Why_is_Highway_Expansion_Bad.pdf

[Slick Vik]

The cost of building highways varies considerably according to real property acquisition costs, terrain, degree of urbanization, roadway width, pavement and base thickness, and any special safety or environmental features required. On the extreme end of the spectrum, Boston is home to the most expensive road in United States history, which had an extraordinary cost of over $1 billion per mile (Simon [NPR], 1996). Paradoxically, another New England road was criticized as "wasteful" because it cost $19 million per mile (Frandsen, 1996), a pittance by comparison.

Elevated multi-lane highways through cities can be costly because of the displacement of current infrastructure. For example, recent costs in the New York City area have been $333 million per mile (Wieman, 1996). However, these high costs are not representative of other major cities. Even with considerable displacement, the costs were only half of that amount in the Los Angeles area 710 freeway extension (Moe, 1994), and only $127 million per mile for Los Angeles' Century Freeway, which is still criticized as having been too costly (Smith, 1993), even though it was relatively cheap in comparison to other projects. Fixing inter-city freeways in central Orange County, California cost $17.7 million per mile (Mott, 1994). Elsewhere in Los Angeles, costs for elevated highways were $20 million per mile, car pool lanes were $2.5 million per mile, and car pool lanes with tolling systems ranged from $30 million to $50 million per mile (Poole, 1994).

Rural and even some suburban highway construction costs far less than complex urban highways in major cities, particularly since there is little infrastructure displacement and there are typically fewer traffic lanes. Most interstate highways in the United States cost just over $1 million per mile to build (Grossman, 1996). In 1996 dollars, the Federal Highway Administration has calculated the "weighted rural and urban combined" costs per mile of interstate highway to be $20.6 million.(9) Other highway construction normally ranges from $1 million to $5 million per mile, but in mountainous regions, like West Virginia, the costs can be as high as $15 million per mile (Brogan, 1997). The costs per highway mile in the expanding Los Angeles metropolitan area for four Ventura County projects were $1.7 million, $2.1 million, $2.4 million, and $2.9 million respectively (Green, 1996). Since most highways are built by direct government provision, it is difficult to determine what their market costs would be. Yet these figures might at least serve as reasonable estimates of expected construction costs under semi-privatization.

http://perc.org/articles/road-congestion-and-its-implications-transportation-policy

[Slick Vik]

http://djcoregon.com/news/2011/01/21/highway-expansion-can-do-more-harm-than-good/

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/01/04/actually-highway-builders-roads-don%E2%80%99t-pay-for-themselves/

http://perc.org/articles/road-congestion-and-its-implications-transportation-policy

[KinkaidAlum]

You're making assumptions about the degree that I-10 expansion has encouraged more growth on the Katy Prairie. Dramatic growth has continued in The Woodlands even though I-45 is more congested than I-10 and that freeway has experienced no expansion. What is common between those two areas is that you have significant growth in jobs that are closer to the residences in both cases.

I'd be curious to see actual data to confirm or disprove, but I would argue that the vast majority of people that are moving onto the Katy Prairie work in either the Energy Corridor, Memorial City, or Westchase and the huge amount of office construction that's occurring in those areas tends to support that.

How am I making an assumption when the KATY ISD has grown faster than HISD, Spring ISD, Klein ISD, Cypress ISD, Conroe ISD, etc...?

Also, do you think it's just a neat coincidence that the Energy Corridor is blowing up with office development AFTER I-10 was expanded?

The offices out that way are also getting bigger. More workers, more residents, more auxiliary services needed to supply them, etc... is going to lead to more congestion on the freeway in the future.

The reality is we need options. I am all for good freeways but they cannot be the only thing in our regional transit plan. We need to finish the light rail lines (including an East-West line) and then talk about commuter rail to Katy, Sugar Land, Pearland, The Woodlands, Cypress, Kingwood, and Clear Lake.

[Slick Vik]

How am I making an assumption when the KATY ISD has grown faster than HISD, Spring ISD, Klein ISD, Cypress ISD, Conroe ISD, etc...?

Also, do you think it's just a neat coincidence that the Energy Corridor is blowing up with office development AFTER I-10 was expanded?

The offices out that way are also getting bigger. More workers, more residents, more auxiliary services needed to supply them, etc... is going to lead to more congestion on the freeway in the future.

The reality is we need options. I am all for good freeways but they cannot be the only thing in our regional transit plan. We need to finish the light rail lines (including an East-West line) and then talk about commuter rail to Katy, Sugar Land, Pearland, The Woodlands, Cypress, Kingwood, and Clear Lake.

When rail supporters use the same arguments they get vehement responses. I agree with the last paragraph.