Road design, transportation and walkability

[WLU]

That whole "induce more traffic" theory is nonsense.

Is this an opinion or something you're able to cite? Induced demand is a well understood, well-researched  phenomenon.

The wikipedia page has quite a bit of information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

This article from 2014 is a pretty good discussion about the research and the effect: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traff...ed-demand/

Hi Rob,

  Thanks for the links.  While checking them out.  I also found some articles that attempt to debunk the theory.  I've included some below.  Until today, I've never read any articles pro or against this theory.  The theory just doesn't make any sense to me and I just form my personal opinion based on data and what I observe, and I feel that demand for driving is driven mainly by population growth and economics/choice ( the affordability of driving ). 
  Again, these are just a couple of articles.  I guess we can take from it what we will.  Thx Rob.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/puncturing-the-myth-of-more-roads-mean-more-congestion

https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth

[WLU]

A road widening may be initiated in response to demand, but that doesn't contradict induced demand. To explain briefly: at a certain point, a road reaches a saturation point. The number of people using the road balances the number of people avoiding it. I may start using that road, but at the same time, someone else is making the decision to use another, or take transit, or work from home. Expanding a road changes that equation. It does lower congestion for a time, but as more people use the road, existing users don't have an incentive to not use it any more until it once again reaches a saturation point.

Basically, induced demand simply acknowledges that the supply of a particular transportation mode - whether that be roads or transit or bike lanes - affects the demand toward certain modes. Supply and demand works on roads just as it does for any other good.

It's additionally hilarious that they talk about the MTO...which is King of induced demand. You might argue that car use in the city is at least equally affected by land use as it is road building, but the MTO's construction almost exclusively drives induced demand. Cities, companies, houses, shopping, people, jobs, are where they are almost as a direct result of MTO built expressways--subdivisions advertise the highways as features.


No "they" here.  I'm one person, singular.  A bit of a spin wouldn't you say.  You're intentionally taking MTO out of the context in which I was using them.  But, since you mentioned it, tell me what city is where it is as a result of the 401 being built?

[jamincan]

If you look at the 401 through Toronto, the traffic on that road is saturated. It has had roughly the same volume of traffic for well over a decade despite the fact that Toronto has grown significantly over the same period of time. Why do you think that is?

[danbrotherston]

Is this an opinion or something you're able to cite? Induced demand is a well understood, well-researched  phenomenon.

The wikipedia page has quite a bit of information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

This article from 2014 is a pretty good discussion about the research and the effect: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traff...ed-demand/

Hi Rob,

  Thanks for the links.  While checking them out.  I also found some articles that attempt to debunk the theory.  I've included some below.  Until today, I've never read any articles pro or against this theory.  The theory just doesn't make any sense to me and I just form my personal opinion based on data and what I observe, and I feel that demand for driving is driven mainly by population growth and economics/choice ( the affordability of driving ). 
  Again, these are just a couple of articles.  I guess we can take from it what we will.  Thx Rob.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/puncturing-the-myth-of-more-roads-mean-more-congestion

https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth

General relativity doesn’t make any sense to me, for tens of thousands of years the idea the earth was a sphere didn’t make sense to people.

Just because something doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it isn’t true. You have hundreds of 60s and 70s planners who also didn’t believe it.  Sadly they, and you are wrong.  This is very well understood, and accepted.  It isn’t worth talking to you about it because you don’t accept basic fundamental facts of the world. And yes, you can find some libertarian think tanks and angry drivers who want to deny these basic facts but it doesn’t make you edgy or ahead of the curve to believe them, it makes you unaccepting of basic facts, and I don’t have the energy to argue with someone about whether water is wet.

As for subsidies, it costs more to deliver services to suburban areas. That too is a simple fact.  There are more roads to service, more pipes, more fire halls, more ambulance depots, more libraries, longer bus routes, etc.  This is also well understood, dense areas of a city subsidize sprawling ones.

[danbrotherston]

If you look at the 401 through Toronto, the traffic on that road is saturated. It has had roughly the same volume of traffic for well over a decade despite the fact that Toronto has grown significantly over the same period of time. Why do you think that is?

The best example is I-405 Sepelveda pass in LA. Over a billion was spent to widen this world renowned traffic jam. Within only a few years traffic speeds are now below where they were before widening. A billion spent to make things worse, what a failure.

[ijmorlan]

A billion spent to make things worse, what a failure.

To be fair, it is now moving many more cars at that slow speed than it did before, so it’s not a total failure.

But yes, $1 billion probably could have done more to improve mobility spent on transit or active transportation.

Similarly if the 401 were to be double-decked (at what fantastic price I shudder to imagine), it would move many more vehicles than it does now; but after not very long, not any faster than it does now.

[ijmorlan]

Great reply.  You don't like/agree with someone else's post so "there isn't much point talking".

Incorrect, if Dan is anything like me.

There are many people with whom I disagree that are very much worth talking to. Sometimes I learn things; sometimes they learn things; sometimes both. Even if we still disagree, we have an increased understanding after the discussion.

But if somebody comes along denying basic facts and refuses to look at the evidence, then an enlightening conversation is unlikely. We see this in just about every scientific field, where there is usually vigorous debate among scientists about just about every topic. Then some flat-Earther, creationist, or homeopath (to name just a few) comes along and spews out their contribution. Not welcome, and not helpful.

To get back to the first word I wrote above — “incorrect” — I don’t use it just whenever I disagree with someone. It is reserved for when somebody has said something that is objectively, factually, wrong as far as I can tell.

If somebody thinks many more highways should be built, then I disagree, but I wouldn’t call them “incorrect”. If they think that building highways is cheap compared to other ways of moving people, however, then they are factually incorrect and I won’t hesitate to say so.

[ijmorlan]

No "they" here.  I'm one person, singular.  A bit of a spin wouldn't you say.  You're intentionally taking MTO out of the context in which I was using them.  But, since you mentioned it, tell me what city is where it is as a result of the 401 being built?

I think that is intended to be singular “they”.

And to answer your question, how many people would live in Pickering without the 401?

[danbrotherston]

A billion spent to make things worse, what a failure.

To be fair, it is now moving many more cars at that slow speed than it did before, so it’s not a total failure.

But yes, $1 billion probably could have done more to improve mobility spent on transit or active transportation.

Similarly if the 401 were to be double-decked (at what fantastic price I shudder to imagine), it would move many more vehicles than it does now; but after not very long, not any faster than it does now.

But what is the value of moving cars?

Is it actually moving more people, or are all of those people just making trips they would have chosen a different mode for or to a different farther destination than they would have chosen.

We've possibly increased pollution, and congestion, with no evidence we've improved mobility and opportunity.

[danbrotherston]

No "they" here.  I'm one person, singular.  A bit of a spin wouldn't you say.  You're intentionally taking MTO out of the context in which I was using them.  But, since you mentioned it, tell me what city is where it is as a result of the 401 being built?

I think that is intended to be singular “they”.

And to answer your question, how many people would live in Pickering without the 401?

Yes, I was using singular they, I'm not going to assume anyone's pronouns...no spin intended...

And yes, the 401 and it's subsequent widenings is the biggest single contributor to congestion and sprawl in Toronto. Possibly lots of people would live in Pickering without the 401, but they would either live near a train station, or they would work in Pickering, they would not spend nearly 20% of their waking life dumping tons of carbon and soot into the air, while creating a less pleasant place for everyone else to live while commuting to work.

[dtkvictim]

Great reply.  You don't like/agree with someone else's post so "there isn't much point talking".

Incorrect, if Dan is anything like me.

There are many people with whom I disagree that are very much worth talking to. Sometimes I learn things; sometimes they learn things; sometimes both. Even if we still disagree, we have an increased understanding after the discussion.

But if somebody comes along denying basic facts and refuses to look at the evidence, then an enlightening conversation is unlikely. We see this in just about every scientific field, where there is usually vigorous debate among scientists about just about every topic. Then some flat-Earther, creationist, or homeopath (to name just a few) comes along and spews out their contribution. Not welcome, and not helpful.

To get back to the first I wrote about — “incorrect” — I don’t use it just whenever I disagree with someone. It is reserved for when somebody has said something that is objectively, factually, wrong as far as I can tell.

If somebody thinks many more highways should be built, then I disagree, but I wouldn’t call them “incorrect”. If they think that building highways is cheap compared to other ways of moving people, however, then they are factually incorrect and I won’t hesitate to say so.

Just to start with, I happen to agree with both Dan and you on the topic of induced demand. If either of you think that the majority of the general population have heard of induced demand, or intuitively believe it to be correct, I think you are misinformed. If this is WLUs first time hearing of induced demand then I think you should be happy with his approach of attempting to understand "both sides" and trying to create an informed opinion. If the facts are truly, obviously, and undeniably on "our side", then you shouldn't have much problem convincing him of that. The self-righteous "the facts are obvious, stop being an idiot" approach isn't going to convince anyone.

Dan, if you truly don't have the energy to debate to topic, but have the energy to insult someone trying to understand it, then I think it would be more convincing to not post at all.

I don't mean to insult anyone with this post, but the reason the government continues build infrastructure in a way that you feel is wrong is because the general population doesn't agree with you. You have to convince them otherwise.

[ijmorlan]

To be fair, it is now moving many more cars at that slow speed than it did before, so it’s not a total failure.

But yes, $1 billion probably could have done more to improve mobility spent on transit or active transportation.

Similarly if the 401 were to be double-decked (at what fantastic price I shudder to imagine), it would move many more vehicles than it does now; but after not very long, not any faster than it does now.

But what is the value of moving cars?

Enough for those people to get in their cars and brave the congestion, at least. But that doesn’t make the 401 an efficient way to get those people to where they are going.

Is it actually moving more people, or are all of those people just making trips they would have chosen a different mode for or to a different farther destination than they would have chosen.

We've possibly increased pollution, and congestion, with no evidence we've improved mobility and opportunity.

No disagreement here.

[tomh009]

Fundamentally, it's much like buying a bigger hard disk for your PC, or moving into a bigger house: most people end up filling them up, because now they can.

[robdrimmie]

The theory just doesn't make any sense to me and I just form my personal opinion based on data and what I observe

So, I hope you understand that this position is the exact opposite of scientific theory. I respect your right to have and share your opinion, but if you're going to present assertions based solely on your experience of the world then I'm forced to agree with Dan. I see no point in having a conversation about the real world with someone talking about their imagination.

[robdrimmie]

If this is WLUs first time hearing of induced demand then I think you should be happy with his approach of attempting to understand "both sides" and trying to create an informed opinion. If the facts are truly, obviously, and undeniably on "our side", then you shouldn't have much problem convincing him of that. The self-righteous "the facts are obvious, stop being an idiot" approach isn't going to convince anyone.

If a person asserts that a particular concept is bullshit without even knowing the name of the concept, I'm very comfortable thinking that person is an idiot. Googling "induced demand" takes less than a minute to get to a lot of good information.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but there is a lot wrong with demanding that a position based on ignorance be treated the same as positions based on real scientific work.