Congestion Pricing Yielding Results On Katy Freeway

[Slick Vik]

 

Though it has only been about a month since a one-way trip along all 12 miles of the managed lanes increased to $7 from $5, officials said toll lane use has declined as expected.

 

Between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. at the Eldridge Parkway toll gate, one of three spots where people pay the toll, 1,922 cars used the solo-driver lane each day just before the price hike took effect, Castaneda said. After the increase, 1,792 cars used the lane during the same hour.

 

Meanwhile, ridership on Metro's commuter buses has spiked. At the Grand Parkway location, Metro had 700 more boardings in the last week of September than in the last week of August, a 15 percent increase, according to spokeswoman Margaret O'Brien Molina. Kingsland park and ride buses during the same two weeks had 600 more boardings, a 4 percent gain.

 

 

Pretty interesting. This is the fastest, cheapest way to help traffic flow.

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/columnists/begley/article/Price-hike-has-desired-effect-so-far-on-Katy-4895563.php?cmpid=btfpm

[brian0123]

I found this part of the article intersting:

 

Meanwhile many commuters are looking for whatever time savings they can, though some said there is really no good way to travel along the I-10 corridor. Buses take too long when you factor in parking, boarding and then getting to your destination, many said. The general use lanes are statistically better than they were a decade ago, but still nightmarish during peak commutes.

"Is there a time when the freeway isn't jammed?" Roland Smith asked. "I went out Saturday and (the traffic) looked like Monday morning."

 

So basically the huge expense of redoing I-10 only slightly helped, but it's still a mess as more people are using it. I can't imagine the energy corridor maintaining its popularity if traffic becomes crippling along it.

[Slick Vik]

I found this part of the article intersting:

 

Meanwhile many commuters are looking for whatever time savings they can, though some said there is really no good way to travel along the I-10 corridor. Buses take too long when you factor in parking, boarding and then getting to your destination, many said. The general use lanes are statistically better than they were a decade ago, but still nightmarish during peak commutes.

"Is there a time when the freeway isn't jammed?" Roland Smith asked. "I went out Saturday and (the traffic) looked like Monday morning."

 

So basically the huge expense of redoing I-10 only slightly helped, but it's still a mess as more people are using it. I can't imagine the energy corridor maintaining its popularity if traffic becomes crippling along it.

 

This is a great point. The $3 billion investment for Katy Freeway yielded marginal improvement, but even that is going away with each passing day. $3 billion towards mass transit could have done a lot more IMO

[august948]

I found this part of the article intersting:

 

Meanwhile many commuters are looking for whatever time savings they can, though some said there is really no good way to travel along the I-10 corridor. Buses take too long when you factor in parking, boarding and then getting to your destination, many said. The general use lanes are statistically better than they were a decade ago, but still nightmarish during peak commutes.

"Is there a time when the freeway isn't jammed?" Roland Smith asked. "I went out Saturday and (the traffic) looked like Monday morning."

 

So basically the huge expense of redoing I-10 only slightly helped, but it's still a mess as more people are using it. I can't imagine the energy corridor maintaining its popularity if traffic becomes crippling along it.

 

On the contrary, worsening traffic on I10 is just going to convince more and more people, including some business decision makers, that it's better to move jobs out of downtown and the loop to places futher out like the Energy Corridor.

 

[august948]

Pretty interesting. This is the fastest, cheapest way to help traffic flow.

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/columnists/begley/article/Price-hike-has-desired-effect-so-far-on-Katy-4895563.php?cmpid=btfpm

 

Glad you're starting to see how great HOV/HOT, P&R and managed lanes are.

 

[august948]

 

"Is there a time when the freeway isn't jammed?" Roland Smith asked. "I went out Saturday and (the traffic) looked like Monday morning."

 

The answer to this question is yes.  Most of the time the freeway isn't jammed at all, particularly outside the loop.  I travel I10 on an almost daily basis at all times of the day and night and the only time it's jammed is during rush hour or if there's an accident.  It's much better than it was before the rebuild.

[Slick Vik]

It's much better than it was before the rebuild.

 

The average commute has been cut down by 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Is that worth $3 billion?

[Slick Vik]

Glad you're starting to see how great HOV/HOT, P&R and managed lanes are.

 

 

Not really. I would be the first to say they should be eliminated and replaced with commuter rail. But since that isn't going to happen, congestion pricing is the best immediate step to get more people to use the mass transit we do have.

[Houston19514]

The average commute has been cut down by 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Is that worth $3 billion?

 

How many more vehicles/people does it handle per day than it previously did?

[livincinco]

This is a great point. The $3 billion investment for Katy Freeway yielded marginal improvement, but even that is going away with each passing day. $3 billion towards mass transit could have done a lot more IMO

 

The original Katy Freeway had a daily capacity of 73,000 vehicles.  The widened Katy Freeway has a daily capacity of 274,000 vehicles.  Not sure how that can be considered marginal improvement.  By means of comparison, Metro is projecting ridership on the North Line to be 29,000 people per day at a construction cost of $900/million.

 

I'm a big believer in congestion pricing.  There's more impact on driving people to mass transit, but there's also a large impact in pushing people to consider off-peak commute patterns as well.  We don't really have a capacity issue in Houston.  We have a peak capacity issue.  Off-peak commuting is a net gain with no incremental requirement for additional capacity.

[Slick Vik]

How many more vehicles/people does it handle per day than it previously did?

 

This is precisely the point. It's induced demand; creating more lanes encourages more people to drive, which is why the time savings are marginal. Just a cycle of catering to the automobile.

[Houston19514]

The average commute has been cut down by 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Is that worth $3 billion?

 

 

How many more vehicles/people does it handle per day than it previously did?

 

Answer:  At one spot on the freeway (at Wirt), the rebuilt Katy handles roughly 75,000 more vehicles per day than it did pre-rebuild and cuts 10 minutes and 30 seconds off the average commute time.    At Wirt, it now carries roughly 275,000 vehicles per day. 

 

I don't know if there exists a count of the total number of vehicles trips made on the full length of the Katy Freeway each day.  That would be the only way to do a fair comparison to any mass transit ridership numbers (because we count all riders who get on the transit service at any point on the line; we don't just count how many are on the train at a certain intersection.)   Clearly, the total number of vehicles using the Katy Freeway each day would far exceed 275,000.  Clearly, not all of those vehicles are single-occupancy, so the number of users exceeds even the huge number of vehicles using the freeway.

 

I think we can pretty safely guesstimate that the Katy Freeway serves more than 500,000 riders per day and that easily 150,000 of those daily riders are possible because of the expansion.  So, in addition to saving an average of 10 minutes 30 seconds per commuter, we have added 150,000 daily users to our transportation system.

 

Has anyone built a $ 3 Billion rail system that has 150,000 users per day?   I'm pretty sure Dallas has spent well in excess of $3 Billion on its light rail system and as of earlier this year it was providing about 93,000 daily rides.

[livincinco]

This is precisely the point. It's induced demand; creating more lanes encourages more people to drive, which is why the time savings are marginal. Just a cycle of catering to the automobile.

 

I love the theory of induced demand because it basically acknowledges that when given the opportunity, people will choose cars over mass transit and that we need to make the ability to use cars so onerous that people choose mass transit instead. 

 

So just to make sure we're on the same page:

 

Katy Freeway - provided lots of excess capacity - very high utilization - failure.

 

DART - provides lots of excess capacity - low utilization - success.

 

The theory of induced demand assumes that your objective is to get people out of cars, not to provide mobility.

[Slick Vik]

I love the theory of induced demand because it basically acknowledges that when given the opportunity, people will choose cars over mass transit and that we need to make the ability to use cars so onerous that people choose mass transit instead. 

 

So just to make sure we're on the same page:

 

Katy Freeway - provided lots of excess capacity - very high utilization - failure.

 

DART - provides lots of excess capacity - low utilization - success.

 

The theory of induced demand assumes that your objective is to get people out of cars, not to provide mobility.

 

It works in the opposite sense too. Removing embarcadero freeway, and similar projects in Seoul, MIlwaukee, and other cities have showed removing freeways in certain areas doesn't cause the armageddon that is feared.

 

Also you totally ignore the environmental impact that thousands of new cars on the road have on air quality. I guess that part doesn't matter to you.

 

And also, once it gets to a point where freeways can't be expanded anymore and traffic is gridlock most hours of the day, what will your answer be? At some point a good mass transit system has to be built. You and others like yourself are trying to kick the can down the road as long as possible, whereas people like me are being proactive That's the difference.

 

And it's cheaper to build a system now then it will be in the future.

[Houston19514]

This is precisely the point. It's induced demand; creating more lanes encourages more people to drive, which is why the time savings are marginal. Just a cycle of catering to the automobile.

 

Induced demand is such a joke.  The increased demand (a) was already there before the project was undertaken (as demonstrated by the monstrous congestion) and ( just might have a little something to do with adding 1.5 million people or so to the metro area since the project was started.

[livincinco]

It works in the opposite sense too. Removing embarcadero freeway, and similar projects in Seoul, MIlwaukee, and other cities have showed removing freeways in certain areas doesn't cause the armageddon that is feared.

 

Also you totally ignore the environmental impact that thousands of new cars on the road have on air quality. I guess that part doesn't matter to you.

 

And also, once it gets to a point where freeways can't be expanded anymore and traffic is gridlock most hours of the day, what will your answer be? At some point a good mass transit system has to be built. You and others like yourself are trying to kick the can down the road as long as possible, whereas people like me are being proactive That's the difference.

 

And it's cheaper to build a system now then it will be in the future.

 

You are once again missing the point.  You're telling us what you want to have happen and you are very emotional and passionate about it.  I'm telling you what I think is going to happen without emotion whatsoever based on my observations and research.

 

You could certainly remove freeway capacity in Houston, but I don't think that it would have the effect that you want.  My personal opinion is that it would just drive more businesses to locate on the perimeter instead of downtown.

 

 

 

[Slick Vik]

You are once again missing the point.  You're telling us what you want to have happen and you are very emotional and passionate about it.  I'm telling you what I think is going to happen without emotion whatsoever based on my observations and research.

 

You could certainly remove freeway capacity in Houston, but I don't think that it would have the effect that you want.  My personal opinion is that it would just drive more businesses to locate on the perimeter instead of downtown.

 

I'm not really emotional or passionate about this issue, I'm just using common sense against rigid views. At some point major mass transit will have to be built. Whether it is now, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now. It's going to happen, the question is when. Just look at a map, look at major cities around the country and around the world. Look at their transportation systems. Houston is right now an outlier, but it will join in at some point.

[livincinco]

I'm not really emotional or passionate about this issue, I'm just using common sense against rigid views. At some point major mass transit will have to be built. Whether it is now, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now. It's going to happen, the question is when. Just look at a map, look at major cities around the country and around the world. Look at their transportation systems. Houston is right now an outlier, but it will join in at some point.

 

The fact that you're calling out others for having rigid views is hysterical.  Everybody agrees that mass transit has to be built.  It's just that myself and others have argued that Houston is better served by building out high quality bus transit first before moving to major rail expansion. 

 

You keep calling Houston an outlier, but last time I checked there are three rail lines under construction.  Not sure why that makes us such an outlier.  I just still question the effectiveness of rail in low density cities.

[brian0123]

So can someone (pro moving businesses to the outside) elaborate on how that could actually help congestion (not sure if this should be a sep thread)? The way I see it...

 

1. Businesses would be farther apart, so commute times would increase (unless the business happened to sign a lease near your house).

2. There is only one commute option to get to the exterior for that business (i.e. one freeway), instead of the plethora near Downtown/Galleria/Med Center.

3. There's no definition of "outside". In other words, businesses would have to keep relocating as sprawl would move beyond the exterior.

4. Unless you live in a burb your job decides to move to, you have no option other than commute across town (inc commute times), or selling your house. A commute from Sugarland->Downtown vs Sugarland->The Woodlands

 

Can someone elaborate, because frankly it seems like people that make that argument just assume their employer will choose to relocate near their house in the burbs.

[livincinco]

So can someone (pro moving businesses to the outside) elaborate on how that could actually help congestion (not sure if this should be a sep thread)? The way I see it...

 

1. Businesses would be farther apart, so commute times would increase (unless the business happened to sign a lease near your house). 

2. There is only one commute option to get to the exterior for that business (i.e. one freeway), instead of the plethora near Downtown/Galleria/Med Center.

3. There's no definition of "outside". In other words, businesses would have to keep relocating as sprawl would move beyond the exterior.

4. Unless you live in a burb your job decides to move to, you have no option other than commute across town (inc commute times), or selling your house. A commute from Sugarland->Downtown vs Sugarland->The Woodlands

 

Can someone elaborate, because frankly it seems like people that make that argument just assume their employer will choose to relocate near their house in the burbs.

 

It reduces congestion by dispersing traffic over a larger amount of roads and directions.  When you have a traditional centralized job model, you have a bunch of transportation moving one direction with tons of excess capacity the other direction.  Then at night, the reverse happens.  If you have dispersed job locations, you have a smaller amount of traffic moving multiple directions, so you're more efficient in your utilization of existing capacity.   The same is true of off peak options.  The fastest and cheapest way to increase movement is to reduce the ratio of traffic peak vs. non-peak hence the effectiveness of congestion pricing.

 

In answer to some of your other points, businesses don't really want to be on the exterior.  They want to be in a location that is centered around a large population.  Memorial City has a population of about 1.4 million people located within a 10 mile radius.  The population inside the loop is about 400,000 (slightly smaller radius).  Since 2/3rds of the population of the Houston area lives outside the Beltway, being located on or around the Beltway (particularly on the west side) is going to make increasing sense for people.  After all, it really doesn't preclude inside the loop residents because they're moving opposite commute.

[Slick Vik]

The fact that you're calling out others for having rigid views is hysterical. Everybody agrees that mass transit has to be built. It's just that myself and others have argued that Houston is better served by building out high quality bus transit first before moving to major rail expansion.

You keep calling Houston an outlier, but last time I checked there are three rail lines under construction. Not sure why that makes us such an outlier. I just still question the effectiveness of rail in low density cities.

Bus expansion can't take place in tandem with rail expansion?

I wouldn't consider Salt Lake City a high density city but rail is doing very well there. BART serves 400,000 riders daily. Los Angeles is building the expo and Crenshaw line. Even Phoenix is expanding and Austin is pondering as well. Seattle, Portland, and Denver are expanding as well.

[brian0123]

It reduces congestion by dispersing traffic over a larger amount of roads and directions.  When you have a traditional centralized job model, you have a bunch of transportation moving one direction with tons of excess capacity the other direction.  Then at night, the reverse happens.  If you have dispersed job locations, you have a smaller amount of traffic moving multiple directions, so you're more efficient in your utilization of existing capacity.   The same is true of off peak options.  The fastest and cheapest way to increase movement is to reduce the ratio of traffic peak vs. non-peak hence the effectiveness of congestion pricing.

 

In answer to some of your other points, businesses don't really want to be on the exterior.  They want to be in a location that is centered around a large population.  Memorial City has a population of about 1.4 million people located within a 10 mile radius.  The population inside the loop is about 400,000 (slightly smaller radius).  Since 2/3rds of the population of the Houston area lives outside the Beltway, being located on or around the Beltway (particularly on the west side) is going to make increasing sense for people.  After all, it really doesn't preclude inside the loop residents because they're moving opposite commute.

 

Outside the beltway is a huge area. Just saying 2/3's of population lives outside it fails to take into account the fact that you'd really need to split "outside the beltway" into about 8 sections since commuting from one section to another is nearly impossible during rush hour. Add more housing and businesses to an infrastructure built for neighborhoods and not high traffic flow... and you'll eventually need to split it into more slices. Suddenly, the range of employees around a business on the Beltway is a lot less. Yes, maybe ___ million people live within a 10 mile radius, but commuting those 10 miles on narrow streets with tons of traffic lights won't cut it. Oh, and neighborhoods will have to contend with people "cutting through" a lot more, sort of ruining the suburban feel.

[livincinco]

So can someone (pro moving businesses to the outside) elaborate on how that could actually help congestion (not sure if this should be a sep thread)?

 

To further elaborate on this the Q2 2013 office market report showed that out of the largest Class A leases completed in Q2, it broke down as follows:

 

1,350,753 - outside the CBD

   148,053 - inside the CBD

 

That's almost 90% of new Class A leases executed were outside the CBD. 

 

[luciaphile]

Outside the beltway is a huge area. Just saying 2/3's of population lives outside it fails to take into account the fact that you'd really need to split "outside the beltway" into about 8 sections since commuting from one section to another is nearly impossible during rush hour. Add more housing and businesses to an infrastructure built for neighborhoods and not high traffic flow... and you'll eventually need to split it into more slices. Suddenly, the range of employees around a business on the Beltway is a lot less. Yes, maybe ___ million people live within a 10 mile radius, but commuting those 10 miles on narrow streets with tons of traffic lights won't cut it. Oh, and neighborhoods will have to contend with people "cutting through" a lot more, sort of ruining the suburban feel.

 

This sounds right. Wasn't there somebody on HAIF one day helpfully alerting us to the power of πr²?

Advocating for sprawl in the way that a Steve Forbes does has a certain brutal candor. He'll never live in it, he'll probably never see it, he doesn't care what it means for the country for it to be the environment in which the vast majority will live and die -- whether it is a good place for people to be "built."

Advocating for sprawl in the belief that it will result in self-sufficient micro-cities, that will avoid the mistakes of the past, derives from a far less cynical attitude. Still, it reminds me of that kid who, when we were playing whatever game, would continually shout "do-over."  

 

[Slick Vik]

To further elaborate on this the Q2 2013 office market report showed that out of the largest Class A leases completed in Q2, it broke down as follows:

 

1,350,753 - outside the CBD

   148,053 - inside the CBD

 

That's almost 90% of new Class A leases executed were outside the CBD. 

 

You realize 3 things right?

 

1. The example you love to use, LA, is expanding its rail system at a rapid pace. AND, it funnels through downtown, even though this is your beacon of decentralization. So even where the center doesn't matter, it still matters.

2. Urban sprawl leads to difficulty in providing services for such a large area. Cops, firefighters, etc.

3. There is an environmental effect as well. Though you mention microcities, you aren't advocating people live close to their work. In fact you say there's nothing wrong with people reverse commuting from the city outside of it, and people just driving around mindlessly in general. And the telecomutting you harp on, applies to only 3% of employees. Cars, cars, and more cars!

[Houston19514]

I wouldn't consider Salt Lake City a high density city but rail is doing very well there. BART serves 400,000 riders daily. Los Angeles is building the expo and Crenshaw line. Even Phoenix is expanding and Austin is pondering as well. Seattle, Portland, and Denver are expanding as well.

 

So what?  It's all induced demand.  ;-)

[livincinco]

You realize 3 things right?

 

1. The example you love to use, LA, is expanding its rail system at a rapid pace. AND, it funnels through downtown, even though this is your beacon of decentralization. So even where the center doesn't matter, it still matters.

2. Urban sprawl leads to difficulty in providing services for such a large area. Cops, firefighters, etc.

3. There is an environmental effect as well. Though you mention microcities, you aren't advocating people live close to their work. In fact you say there's nothing wrong with people reverse commuting from the city outside of it, and people just driving around mindlessly in general. And the telecomutting you harp on, applies to only 3% of employees. Cars, cars, and more cars!

 

We've gone over this before, but we can certainly go over it again.  Los Angeles has a population density of 8,225 sq/mile, Houston has a density of 3,623 sq/mile.   The Los Angeles metro has a population of 12.8 million people.  (The Greater Los Angeles CSA based on the commute region has a population of 18.2 million people.)  The average daily ridership of metrorail is 362k people. That's 2% of the total population of the region.

 

I actually don't harp on telecommuting, but since you bring it up the numbers that I found show that 4.3% of the workforce nationally works from home with a projected 69% increase by 2016.  By means of comparison, 5% of the workforce nationally reports that they use public transportation on a daily basis and that's public transit in total, not just rail.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0305/No-more-telecommuting-Not-a-problem-for-most-American-workers

 

Regarding where people live, I'm advocating that people should have the right to choose where they live and where they work.  If someone chooses to live and work in an area that allows them to use public transit to get to their job, that's their choice.  If someone chooses to live and work in an area that requires them to drive to and from work, that's their choice also.  The same is true of companies.  They get to choose where they locate.

[august948]

Outside the beltway is a huge area. Just saying 2/3's of population lives outside it fails to take into account the fact that you'd really need to split "outside the beltway" into about 8 sections since commuting from one section to another is nearly impossible during rush hour. Add more housing and businesses to an infrastructure built for neighborhoods and not high traffic flow... and you'll eventually need to split it into more slices. Suddenly, the range of employees around a business on the Beltway is a lot less. Yes, maybe ___ million people live within a 10 mile radius, but commuting those 10 miles on narrow streets with tons of traffic lights won't cut it. Oh, and neighborhoods will have to contend with people "cutting through" a lot more, sort of ruining the suburban feel.

Commuting from one section to another happens every day and is part of what drives congestion on the beltway, particularly on the west side. But it's not "nearly impossible" unless your tolerance for traffic is very low. Edge cities develop along highways, not away from them. You can see how this works by visiting westchase or the energy corridor during the week. As far as "cutting through" one of the features of suburban developments that is much decried by some is the fact that these developments are built to have few options for traffic to flow through. As far as congestion around newly developing edge cities goes, there will be issues but then there is frequently more room for expansion the further out you go. Part of the beauty of the I10 expansion that you may not see if you live inside the loop is that it was widened and improved all the way out past Katy. We will see more expansion like that elsewhere in the future and it will help mitigate traffic concerns into and out of the edge cities.

[Slick Vik]

We've gone over this before, but we can certainly go over it again.  Los Angeles has a population density of 8,225 sq/mile, Houston has a density of 3,623 sq/mile.   The Los Angeles metro has a population of 12.8 million people.  (The Greater Los Angeles CSA based on the commute region has a population of 18.2 million people.)  The average daily ridership of metrorail is 362k people. That's 2% of the total population of the region.

 

I actually don't harp on telecommuting, but since you bring it up the numbers that I found show that 4.3% of the workforce nationally works from home with a projected 69% increase by 2016.  By means of comparison, 5% of the workforce nationally reports that they use public transportation on a daily basis and that's public transit in total, not just rail.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0305/No-more-telecommuting-Not-a-problem-for-most-American-workers

 

Regarding where people live, I'm advocating that people should have the right to choose where they live and where they work.  If someone chooses to live and work in an area that allows them to use public transit to get to their job, that's their choice.  If someone chooses to live and work in an area that requires them to drive to and from work, that's their choice also.  The same is true of companies.  They get to choose where they locate.

 

1. Salt Lake City population density 1668.68 per square mile

2. Denver, population density 3881.22 per square mile

3. Phoenix, population density 2791.08 per square mile

 

All are aggressively expanding rail projects. Salt Lake City has had great success on its expansions thus far. Those are comprable to Houston. What makes Houston different from them?

Commuting from one section to another happens every day and is part of what drives congestion on the beltway, particularly on the west side. But it's not "nearly impossible" unless your tolerance for traffic is very low. Edge cities develop along highways, not away from them. You can see how this works by visiting westchase or the energy corridor during the week. As far as "cutting through" one of the features of suburban developments that is much decried by some is the fact that these developments are built to have few options for traffic to flow through. As far as congestion around newly developing edge cities goes, there will be issues but then there is frequently more room for expansion the further out you go. Part of the beauty of the I10 expansion that you may not see if you live inside the loop is that it was widened and improved all the way out past Katy. We will see more expansion like that elsewhere in the future and it will help mitigate traffic concerns into and out of the edge cities.

 

More justification for sprawl.

[august948]

More justification for sprawl.

More justification for distributed commuting. Add in the coming twin revolutions of practical electric vehicles and self-driving cars and we're set to improve commuting, productivity, and the environment in such a way that will have other cities tearing up commuter rail tracks. Why go with 19th century technology when you can do things in a truly modern and efficient way?