General Road and Highway Discussion

[danbrotherston]

Do you or do you not see limiting VMT as a goal? That will determine if you see an argument against this or not. Because along with all road expansion projects increasing VMT will be a direct result. I'm not saying it isn't worth a concession for improving Lancaster (although I think these are less linked than you folks seem to feel) but it does not change the fact that you are contemplating a project that will increase VMT.

I do see it as a goal but agree to disagree on whether this is as big of an impact on increasing VMT as you are implying. I don't think that many people are making a driving decision based on this one ineffective piece of infrastructure being made a little more safe and practical. Maybe this leads to less people using Riverbend or Lancaster to make that route, and perhaps that is better on net to get some cars off potential cycling routes? 

I don't think the VMT and volume impacts are that certain, but having fewer merging near misses on a highway bend is more certain from my experience driving it. Making Lancaster a much better/baseline viable cycling route crossing of the 85 is also more certain to be a car-trip reducer. I think both are good design choices for a rethink of that infrastructure.

Reducing congestion was the first and only reason given initially. Now you (and others) say, it's 'logical' or 'practical' or 'safe', and I know how you feel. But we absolutely know that increasing capacity to reduce congestion does not work. And congestion absolutely deters driving. We aren't talking about something like realigning lanes, we are adding road capacity. It can only increase VMT...how much, I don't know and I haven't said, but increasing it at all is against the goal of decreasing VMT. If you find the "logic" so problematic, then argue for narrowing the other part of the highway.

I don't think "near misses" are related to the lane reduction, but instead the congestion that results. Nobody is confused about the lane ending, they are just aggressive because they are waiting in traffic.

And like I said, I support closing the road at Lancaster and agree it might even be a worthy trade off to widen the highway and close the Lancaster exit. But it IS a trade off...there is no win win here, its a bigger win for a smaller loss.