Casey Overpass

Traffic may seem worse but if it really gets too bad people that can avoid driving through the area will avoid it. A free flowing road just causes more people to take trips through an area congestion is what stops people from driving as much and therefore ironically lowers emissions.
 
induced demand is certainly a controversial topic and far from proven in any scientific way. It is more a political belief with lots of "studies" supporting both sides of the argument.

One area that is easily measured and quantified is that cars, buses and trucks with non hybrid engines are far more efficient when cruising than when starting and stopping - by a factor of 3 or more. It is reasonable to say that 600 vehicles per hour cruising by on an overpass is far less polluting than 600 vehicles per hour in stop and go traffic on a street grid using stop lights. If induced/reduced demand cuts the number of vehicles in the area by a factor of three or more then perhaps getting rid of the overpass will result in fewer emissions as the vehicles wend their way through lighted intersections.

I don't live near the overpass but have used it on occasion. If I lived near it, I would base my stance on convenience of travel for me, beauty of the area, walk-ability, property values if I were a home owner. I would expect traffic and emissions to be worse with a congested street grid and weigh that against my other criteria when deciding whether I was for or against removal of the overpass. If I were a commuter, I would prefer the overpass. IMHO it is a political decision, not an environmental one.
 
induced demand is certainly a controversial topic and far from proven in any scientific way.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this means. Induced demand is the application of economics principle that hold true in every other commodity to road pricing and deriving conclusions based on that. Since no one ever gave me the Nobel submission for the Cars Are Special paper I'll continue to assume that conclusions applicable to the pricing of other resources (like supply and demand) hold true with road pricing.
 
FitchburgLine said:
I'm not sure what this means. Induced demand is the application of economics principle that hold true in every other commodity to road pricing and deriving conclusions based on that. Since no one ever gave me the Nobel submission for the Cars Are Special paper I'll continue to assume that conclusions applicable to the pricing of other resources (like supply and demand) hold true with road pricing.
Click to expand...

I'll take a stab at it. Demand for road capacity is not infinite and can actually be satisfied. This is clearly seen, as if it were infinite, roads would be jam-packed 24/7. They aren't. Many roads are not even packed at rush hour.

Further, much of the "induced demand", is in a sense, greater efficiency. The options people have better match what they want to do, more people are able to travel via the means they want at the time they want.

There's plenty of good reasons to want/not want X. "Induced demand" often seems to be a cop-out argument to avoid coming up with better explanations, it doesn't prove something is bad or even undesirable.

-----

In the case of the Overpass for example, there's capacity constraints at either end anyway (rotaries). Flying along on the Overpass doesn't save you any time, you just get to spend more time waiting at the ends. Since those are never going to be expanded, the Overpass is pointless.

And then you have plenty of other aesthetic, multi-modal and other arguments you can make. All of which are far more compelling than calling it "induced demand".
 
more people are able to travel via the means they want at the time they want.
Click to expand...
The choices people make in response to billions of dollars of government welfare are not necessarily the choices they "want", and directing welfare based on how it feels is shitty.
"induced demand", is in a sense, greater efficiency
Click to expand...
This is a use of efficiency that doesn't match up with common sense. If they only reason a trip is made is because of billions of dollars of subsidies AND a refusal to price negative externalities, the fact that it is made is NOT proof that a market is "more efficient". It's not a disproof, but you can draw conclusions based on actions of consumers inn a regulated market and then apply that to the behavior of an unregulated one.
This is clearly seen, as if it were infinite, roads would be jam-packed 24/7. They aren't.
Click to expand...
No. If power was free by government decree (costs and pollution be damned!) and there was a lull at 3AM where there was less than 100% utilization of transmission lines, that would NOT be evidence that demand was satisfied; ironically, the best argument against congestion pricing is the non-total fungibility of trips at different times of day. Not all commodities have no timing component (power is actually a great example) but that doesn't mean we don't price them.
Many roads are not even packed at rush hour.
Click to expand...
As they should be. The state of massive over utilization constantly is somehow natural and good for roads and terrible for Every Other Resource.

All of which are far more compelling than calling it "induced demand".
Click to expand...
Induced demand isn't an argument, any more than supply and demand are arguments. The conclusions you derive from it can be argued, but the system itself simply describes reality (similarly to MMT, which is a purely descriptive theory but can be used to draw prescriptive conclusions).
Finally, I again repeat my request for the Cars Are Special paper. I'd gladly pass it off to some academic macro guys who would love to help you publish it; since economics are obviously totally different in the land of cars it should be a landmark paper.
 
tocoto said:
induced demand is certainly a controversial topic and far from proven in any scientific way. It is more a political belief with lots of "studies" supporting both sides of the argument.

One area that is easily measured and quantified is that cars, buses and trucks with non hybrid engines are far more efficient when cruising than when starting and stopping - by a factor of 3 or more. It is reasonable to say that 600 vehicles per hour cruising by on an overpass is far less polluting than 600 vehicles per hour in stop and go traffic on a street grid using stop lights. If induced/reduced demand cuts the number of vehicles in the area by a factor of three or more then perhaps getting rid of the overpass will result in fewer emissions as the vehicles wend their way through lighted intersections.

I don't live near the overpass but have used it on occasion. If I lived near it, I would base my stance on convenience of travel for me, beauty of the area, walk-ability, property values if I were a home owner. I would expect traffic and emissions to be worse with a congested street grid and weigh that against my other criteria when deciding whether I was for or against removal of the overpass. If I were a commuter, I would prefer the overpass. IMHO it is a political decision, not an environmental one.
Click to expand...

They did an environmental study - the difference was negligible. plus - the traffic running north/south is supposed to run smoother with at-grade - which is where all the buses/trucks are. east-west traffic is all cars.
 
millerm227 said:
there's capacity constraints at either end anyway (rotaries). Flying along on the Overpass doesn't save you any time, you just get to spend more time waiting at the ends. Since those are never going to be expanded, the Overpass is pointless.
Click to expand...

This.
 
While the process is sure to be messy and inconvenient, I am looking forward to the end result, Forest Hills will be much better without an overpass. Good riddance to that eyesore! The 39 bus will have a new spot in the upper busway, the Orange Line will have an 2nd entry/exit on the north side of new Washington Street.

Many of these highway era viaducts in other cities have come to the end of their lives and have been removed, with good results. Traffic did not devolved into chaos and the neighborhoods below became vibrant and livable once again. These neighborhoods had been vibrant long ago, before being destroyed by modernist priorities (cars, speed, "progress"). Consider how different the rose kennedy greenway area is now from twenty years ago- the landscape design is uninspired but still the area is greatly improved and parts of the city wonderously reconnected.
 
Last edited:
Looks like they put up a fence under the overpass in the raised area near where the 39 currently drops off today.
 
Eiselic said:
While the process is sure to be messy and inconvenient, I am looking forward to the end result, Forest Hills will be much better without an overpass. Good riddance to that eyesore! The 39 bus will have a new spot in the upper busway, the Orange Line will have an 2nd entry/exit on the north side of new Washington Street.

Many of these highway era viaducts in other cities have come to the end of their lives and have been removed, with good results. Traffic did not devolved into chaos and the neighborhoods below became vibrant and livable once again. These neighborhoods had been vibrant long ago, before being destroyed by modernist priorities (cars, speed, "progress"). Consider how different the rose kennedy greenway area is now from twenty years ago- the landscape design is uninspired but still the area is greatly improved and parts of the city wonderously reconnected.
Click to expand...

Let's not get carried away here - at least in this specific area. While your statement would possibly apply to Sullivan Square and other areas in other cities, Forest Hills was always a huge transportation hub and never a very nice place. So when it does finally get cleaned up, it'll be a first. Which is good, I guess.
 
Yancey seems to have swallowed the fantasies of the entrenched opposition hook, line and sinker.

Apparently both would like an endless series of hearings, studies, investigations and most of all delays for an ever-shifting littany of reasons. In the case of BFH, this week they're calling for a Civil Rights investigation, a Public Safety study, an Economic Impact study, and Alternate Route traffic study, and a Length of Commute study (whatever that is). All this from an organization that has rejected the findings of every single study to date since they haven't supported their assertion that "The only resonable solution to this critical traffic issue is the repair or construction of a new bridge".

That opposition lost the hearts and minds of the community most closely affected by this project long ago, so now they've enlisted a City Councilor who does not represent that community to try and throw a banana peel under this State project.

This too shall pass.
 
Last edited:
West said:
Strong whiff of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot from the other councilors towards Mr. Yancey.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If Yancey truly wants to inform his constituents (rather than, say, fuel the fantasies of some of O'Malley's) you'd think he'd instead call for a meeting in his own district, at a time and place convenient to his constituents.

This is more or less my first rodeo of this kind, but it seems a significant number of people who ignored every opportunity to learn more over the last 4 1/2 years are suddenly concerned with the construction underway. Perhaps it is always thus?
 
clayville said:
Perhaps it is always thus?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is always thus. I haven't been following this particular rodeo so carefully, as I don't drive through there so often. But I've been through lots of rodeos and this Johnny come lately act on protest is pretty much eternal. Yancey maybe takes it to an extra length, compared to other pols, but I put the stress on "maybe".

As for the Arborway tear-down opposition more generally, this group does seem to be towards (not at) the far end of the scale on sheer unwillingness to accept defeat. I say that as a distant observer (not geo-distant, more like distant insofar as personal stake goes).
 
I have NO sympathy whatsoever for people who are just finding this out. Further, I am willing to bet these are people who also think the bridge is fine and just needs a paint job. No bridge for you.
 
Here are shots of the westbound Overpass on April 29, just after the creation of a crossover lane on the abutment.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10041103@N06/17345672346/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10041103@N06/17371628395/

Barriers were put in place to allow for demolition to begin:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10041103@N06/17183819258/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10041103@N06/17369668382/

Demolition of the abutment began on April 30th to create two wesbound surface lanes where the ramp at South St currently is:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10041103@N06/16749103214/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10041103@N06/17369663692/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10041103@N06/17183813418/

Progress has been proceeding incrementally since then. And today, MassDOT announced that the westbound overpass closes permanently on Saturday May 9th, and the eastbound side permanently on May 16th.
 
clayville said:
Progress has been proceeding incrementally since then. And today, MassDOT announced that the westbound overpass closes permanently on Saturday May 9th, and the eastbound side permanently on May 16th.
Click to expand...

If that doesn't Induce Demand to drive back and forth at 3 AM for the next week or so -- nothing will :cool:
 
If you want to express your support (or outrage) for the new Casey Arborway, there is an upcoming public meeting to discuss the construction status:
Public Information Meeting
7:00-9:00 PM
Boston English High School Auditorium
144 McBride Street, Jamaica Plain, MA

I will likely be at Doyle's afterwards to relieve the headache I'm sure to get listening to all of the BFH conspiracy theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top