Rose Kennedy Greenway

[datadyne007]

There will always be a need for multi land roads in the city. Like it or not, it is, and will always be the primary mode of transportation for those living outside the city and those who rely on their cars for work. Not everyone can jump on the train, sit at a desk for 8 hrs, then jump on a train back home. Some need their cars all day. Taking a lane away and doubling the traffic impact is actually a preposterous idea. So yes, keep dreaming, its not happening. There have been more projects to add lanes, than to take away lanes in the last 10 years.

Oh dear. Sounds like you need to read about Induced Demand and Reduced Demand (same article), as the inverse is equally true.

 

[Equilibria]

Oh dear. Sounds like you need to read about Induced Demand and Reduced Demand (same article), as the inverse is equally true.

The problem with that logic is that reduced demand is also reduced utility. The cars go away, but to where? Onto other roads? Into canceled trips (and therefore the loss of whatever value they had)? It's not as simple as "Carmageddon never happens." Why? What happens instead?

There are real tradeoffs to be made here between utility for drivers and safety/congestion (which is also utility for drivers)/emissions. I'm disappointed, though, by the degree to which people in my own profession treat it like the cars just go away... and that's great!

 

[JumboBuc]

The problem with that logic is that reduced demand is also reduced utility. The cars go away, but to where? Onto other roads? Into canceled trips (and therefore the loss of whatever value they had)? It's not as simple as "Carmageddon never happens." Why? What happens instead?

There are real tradeoffs to be made here between utility for drivers and safety/congestion (which is also utility for drivers)/emissions. I'm disappointed, though, by the degree to which people in my own profession treat it like the cars just go away... and that's great!

Yes!

So many talk about "induced demand" as if increased road capacity doesn't help anyone because traffic just rises to fill it. But all of those new drivers that make up the "induced demand" are benefiting from using the roads! Supplying more of an in-demand good leads to an increase in welfare, even if the price of the good (represented by congestion) does not appreciably decrease.

And the opposite is true too. Taking away roads results in fewer cars, but now fewer drivers are able to get benefit from those roads. This decreases welfare.

And yes, there are trade-offs in that drivers impose costs on others (externalities like noise and pollution) and in the fact that more space for drivers frequently means less space for other modes of transport. So fewer drivers may increase the welfare of non-drivers, but it's not one-to-one and is certainly not a "free lunch". This is a much more nuanced argument than simply "induced demand makes increasing road capacity useless".

 

[fattony]

The problem with that logic is that reduced demand is also reduced utility. The cars go away, but to where? Onto other roads? Into canceled trips (and therefore the loss of whatever value they had)? It's not as simple as "Carmageddon never happens." Why? What happens instead?

There are real tradeoffs to be made here between utility for drivers and safety/congestion (which is also utility for drivers)/emissions. I'm disappointed, though, by the degree to which people in my own profession treat it like the cars just go away... and that's great!

Good points. These things can and should be quantified and not just guessed at. I would argue that it is not at all obvious that a decrease in automobile trips or even total trips to Boston will be a decrease in utility or economic activity in the city. Car congestion is an nuisance in its own right and has many externalities on the people of the city and businesses on busy roadways.

What is the difference in utility between:

A) Atlantic/Purchase/etc carrying a high volume of auto traffic (going to... we don't know) and the Greenway being a series of modest/mediocre parklets

B) Atlantic/Purchase/etc carrying less auto traffic and more buses and/or trolleys in a dedicated right-of-way and the Greenway being a series of modest/mediocre parklets

C) Atlantic/Purchase/etc carrying less auto traffic and the Greenway being a more extensive complex of parkland and/or development.

My intuition (which I'll admit is not very good, this stuff should be quantified by economists) tells me that the status quo A) probably has the best utility for suburban SOV commuters and pretty good utility for office jobs. B) would have the best utility for the Boston Metro economy overall - for jobs, Boston residents and other transit riders. And I think C) would have the best utility specifically for Boston residents and for entertainment businesses in the district. Planners have to choose who they are maximizing utility for.

 

[mass88]

Taking away travel lanes in this area would be a disaster and only make traffic even worse than it already is.

 

[fattony]

Taking away travel lanes in this area would be a disaster and only make traffic even worse than it already is.

Well, yes and no. Traffic wouldn't necessarily be worse, because I don't think it can be worse. Traffic has already expanded to fill the capacity available here. Reduce the capacity and there will just be fewer cars in the traffic (which will feel just as bad as it does today).

 

[mass88]

Well, yes and no. Traffic wouldn't necessarily be worse, because I don't think it can be worse. Traffic has already expanded to fill the capacity available here. Reduce the capacity and there will just be fewer cars in the traffic (which will feel just as bad as it does today).

The only way we're going to make a serious dent in the awful Boston traffic (it took me 80 minutes to go from downtown to Canton this past Friday) is if we seriously upgrade our transit beyond the city limits. Large swaths of people simply avoid it because of it's speed and reliability so instead they jump in their cars and come into Boston on the already woefully insufficient Southwest Expressway. We need express train service running on tracks that allow for speeds over 50 mph coming in with direct service from places like Dedham, Braintree and Woburn.

Cutting out a lane in the heart of the city to add trolley service isn't going to do anything.

 

[ant8904]

The problem with that logic is that reduced demand is also reduced utility. The cars go away, but to where? Onto other roads? Into canceled trips (and therefore the loss of whatever value they had)? It's not as simple as "Carmageddon never happens." Why? What happens instead?

There are real tradeoffs to be made here between utility for drivers and safety/congestion (which is also utility for drivers)/emissions. I'm disappointed, though, by the degree to which people in my own profession treat it like the cars just go away... and that's great!

If there was a save feature, I would save this post. One poster here and I clash multiple times on this forum with full furry and passion of how "cars are not like water" in paraphrasing lines. It always ended up with making the essentially same response and conversation dies without anything changes. While I doubt anything words said can change any minds, it is still better written than anything I wrote (except maybe by one counterpoint post that I thought was well-written but got ignored)

Congestion will always be there, but number of people served does change as road capacity increase or decreased. It's a wrong way of thinking of build our way out of congestion - especially for cars - as more demand will eventually raise to match capacity. But it is also a wrong way of thinking we can just not care because we can just reduce capacities but congestion remains the same.

 

[fattony]

The only way we're going to make a serious dent in the awful Boston traffic (it took me 80 minutes to go from downtown to Canton this past Friday) is if we seriously upgrade our transit beyond the city limits. Large swaths of people simply avoid it because of it's speed and reliability so instead they jump in their cars and come into Boston on the already woefully insufficient Southwest Expressway. We need express train service running on tracks that allow for speeds over 50 mph coming in with direct service from places like Dedham, Braintree and Woburn.

Cutting out a lane in the heart of the city to add trolley service isn't going to do anything.

New York has transit like you described, how is the traffic there?

You can't "put a dent in traffic." Period.

I forget what thread it was, but I recently outlined an argument that there is essentially an infinite demand to drive cars on urban roads. As long as the roads are free, regardless of how much roadway you have or how good your transit system is, the roadways are going to fill to capacity in urban cores. Simply put, driving is very comfortable and convenient and there is a massive demand to do it. The root fallacy of sprawl-oriented planning was that there was a way to offer uncongested roadways in and around CBDs. Experience now tells us that there does not appear to be any such thing.

There are 2 ways to reduce traffic. The first, and only desirable way, is to put a price on the road by using congestion tolling. The second is to have demand to live/work/play in your city significantly decrease (how is the traffic in Detroit these days?).

 

[datadyne007]

New York has transit like you described, how is the traffic there?

You can't "put a dent in traffic." Period.

I forget what thread it was, but I recently outlined an argument that there is essentially an infinite demand to drive cars on urban roads.

This.

However the road is designed, it will always be filled with traffic. Alternative transit priority improvements that eat into the total automobile ROW such as wide sidewalks, protected bike lanes & transit ROWs are to improve the safety & reliability of walking, biking & transit. They have nothing to do with impacting traffic itself and everything to do with getting walkers, cyclists & transit riders out of traffic.

Remember, when you drive, you're never IN traffic. You ARE traffic.

 

[ant8904]

And congestion tolling returns again - "first, and only desirable way". Less people drive because it cost them people money. A nicer drive, but less people served.

And don't say the money will go into mass transit. That's a hypothetical that money would go there. Put in a thought experiment in the context of Boston, even if we implement congestion tolling a year from now - how would it impact our lives? Less traffic and more of us using the MBTA. But the traffic will be people either who have to drive in or those who can afford. The great majority is just people priced out will be using the MBTA. If you're still driving, I guess you're happier to navigate without the congestion, but it is speculation of the majority of the remaining drivers are happier versus the new expense. If you're taking the train, you know you're taking the train because you got priced out (not truly priced out for many of us obviously, but your behavior was modified because it's not worth it monetarily worth the cost rather than one of the possible options got better than the previous option).

Again, it is not about getting rid of congestion. In an urban setting, we have an infinite true demand that no matter how much roads or rails or trails built, people will come. But our objective not trying to end congestion, we want to minimize it (so minimum bottlenecks) and maximize amount of people getting served.

 

[HenryAlan]

Yes!

So many talk about "induced demand" as if increased road capacity doesn't help anyone because traffic just rises to fill it. But all of those new drivers that make up the "induced demand" are benefiting from using the roads! Supplying more of an in-demand good leads to an increase in welfare, even if the price of the good (represented by congestion) does not appreciably decrease.

Quite true, but there is also opportunity cost to consider. If we spend lavishly on large capacity roadways, does that solve a problem of collecting people in centers of economic activity better than other options? How does it compare to using resources for: housing people in such centers; better, more efficient transit; etc.?

 

[Justin7]

We've had this discussion before and I've already said all of this before, but...

Planners have to choose who they are maximizing utility for.

This is really what it all comes down to. I understand why suburban drivers want more lanes. The thing is though, I don't really give a shit. You're on top of a multi-billion dollar highway, and unless you're driving electric, you're polluting the air in the city and contributing to increased healthcare costs and global warming. Boston has one of the best public transit systems in the US and is probably the country's best walking city. You have plenty of options. The number of lanes on the Greenway surface roads is absurd.

 

[chrisbrat]

We've had this discussion before and I've already said all of this before, but...



This is really what it all comes down to. I understand why suburban drivers want more lanes. The thing is though, I don't really give a shit. You're on top of a multi-billion dollar highway, and unless you're driving electric, you're polluting the air in the city and contributing to increased healthcare costs and global warming. Boston has one of the best public transit systems in the US and is probably the country's best walking city. You have plenty of options. The number of lanes on the Greenway surface roads is absurd.

this was -- WAS -- true a couple decades ago, but cmon. i'm guessing your'e not a regular rider (and apparently have missed the thousands of articles about how shitty the T is these days). broke-down, underfunded, consistently late, in disrepair. our public transit system is an embarrassment -- and widely acknowledged as such.

 

[statler]

Find me a US city that doesn't bitch about their broke-down, underfunded, consistently late, in disrepair public transit system

 

[JumboBuc]

this was -- WAS -- true a couple decades ago, but cmon. i'm guessing your'e not a regular rider (and apparently have missed the thousands of articles about how shitty the T is these days). broke-down, underfunded, consistently late, in disrepair. our public transit system is an embarrassment -- and widely acknowledged as such.

Nope, it's still one of the best. If you think the T is a mess ("broke-down, underfunded, consistently late, in disrepair") you should try Metro.

The T may not be "the best" but it's without question "one of the best".

 

[TheRifleman]

this was -- WAS -- true a couple decades ago, but cmon. i'm guessing your'e not a regular rider (and apparently have missed the thousands of articles about how shitty the T is these days). broke-down, underfunded, consistently late, in disrepair. our public transit system is an embarrassment -- and widely acknowledged as such.

+1.....in the 1980's and 90'S without a doubt Boston had the best Grid.
The problem is they never expanded, upgraded or innovated the hard rail lines.

Instead city & state continue to focus on overbuilding instead of building a solid infrastructure first. Now we are at a place of overdevelopment and traffic that is consuming the highways, roadways and the outdated infrastructure.
It didn't help that the Big Dig went from a budget of 3 Billion to 30 Billion++ with the Feds stepping in on the corruption. That is probably the reason why Boston doesn't press infrastructure upgrades. Also the MBTA pension scenario is very bad. Typical Democratic cess pool of corruption.

Yes at one time in history Boston commute was not that bad.

 

[mass88]

I think it's a fair statement to say that only NYC and Chicago have better transit systems than what we have here in Boston. I could understand why someone would also say DC is better. But by and large, we have a pretty solid system, especially when compared to cities like Houston, Miami, Charlotte, San Francisco among others.

 

[mass88]

+1.....in the 1980's and 90'S without a doubt Boston had the best Grid.
The problem is they never expanded, upgraded or innovated the hard rail lines.

Instead city & state continue to focus on overbuilding instead of building a solid infrastructure first. Now we are at a place of overdevelopment and traffic that is consuming the highways, roadways and the outdated infrastructure.
It didn't help that the Big Dig went from a budget of 3 Billion to 30 Billion++ with the Feds stepping in on the corruption. That is probably the reason why Boston doesn't press infrastructure upgrades. Also the MBTA pension scenario is very bad. Typical Democratic cess pool of corruption.

Yes at one time in history Boston commute was not that bad.

You bring up some good points.

I will point back to south of the city. You have Route 3, 24 and 95 drivers converging onto the Southeast Expressway to get to.from the city. Do you think there was ever a serious thought to making big upgrades to the red line to speed up the trip from Braintree into South Station/DTX/Park Street? That trip is slow and painful on most days. Since you apparently cannot "make a dent in traffic" at least you could give people some type of reasonable alternative for their commute.

 

[tangent]

This is really what it all comes down to. I understand why suburban drivers want more lanes. The thing is though, I don't really give a shit. You're on top of a multi-billion dollar highway, and unless you're driving electric, you're polluting the air in the city and contributing to increased healthcare costs and global warming. Boston has one of the best public transit systems in the US and is probably the country's best walking city. You have plenty of options. The number of lanes on the Greenway surface roads is absurd.

Doesn't seem absurd at all. There is a multibillion dollar highway underneath the Greenway that has more than enough capacity to put cars on those roads.

If Boston wanted to cut itself off from the suburbs (except by mass transit that takes twice as long to get anywhere on) it should have done so before accepting the Big Dig or the original central artery project.

And unless you are completely divorced from economically benefiting/interacting with all those drivers, their jobs, their income, their tax dollars, their spending then you do not get to deny that their contribution to Global Warming is your fault too.

Disagreeable disagreement aside... Tesla and other car companies are well on the way towards electrification. Probably achieve electrification faster than the commuter rail will.