Monday, June 13, 2005
Light rail fails to ease congestion
Oregon's busiest stretch of road is Interstate 84 in east Portland, where traffic has grown by 20 percent in the last ten years. This road is also paralleled by Portland's oldest light-rail line, which obviously hasn't done anything to relieve congestion.
Rail advocates will say, "Think how much worse the congestion would be without light rail." But think instead about how much better it would be if, instead of the light rail, the state had built two new lanes onto the freeway (which would take about the same amount of room as the light-rail line) and charged congestion tolls to use those lanes. Those lanes would then never be congested, and the transit agency could use them to run bus-rapid transit, which would probably take as many if not more people out of their cars as light rail.
The state wouldn't even have had to build those new lanes because this segment of I-84 had HOV lanes that could have been turned into HOT lanes, But those lanes were removed to make room for the light rail. That's progress, Oregon-style: abandon a potential twenty-first century technology in order to build a nineteenth-century solution.
Rail advocates will say, "Think how much worse the congestion would be without light rail." But think instead about how much better it would be if, instead of the light rail, the state had built two new lanes onto the freeway (which would take about the same amount of room as the light-rail line) and charged congestion tolls to use those lanes. Those lanes would then never be congested, and the transit agency could use them to run bus-rapid transit, which would probably take as many if not more people out of their cars as light rail.
The state wouldn't even have had to build those new lanes because this segment of I-84 had HOV lanes that could have been turned into HOT lanes, But those lanes were removed to make room for the light rail. That's progress, Oregon-style: abandon a potential twenty-first century technology in order to build a nineteenth-century solution.
Comments:
Of course MAX provides about the same capacity as a freeway lane in each direction during each peak in both the Banfield and the Sunset corridor––and in the long run, has much higher potential capacity than a HOT lane in each direction, unless one gets 4 people per auto––which isn't going to happen even with $10.00 per gasoline as we enter the "peak oil" era.
Ah, also, the "old fashioned technology" fallacy.
Just because rail is a "19th century" technology doesn't mean it isn't relevant for the 21st century. At least not by the "reasoning" behind this favorite fallacy of transit-bashers.
Please don't use this fallacy again. To remind you why, I point out that
reinforced concrete is a ROMAN technology only recently rediscovered in the early 20th century. Even though this is a two millenia old technology, it is still very useful for various purposes, including building roads.
Mike Setty
www.publictransit.us
Ah, also, the "old fashioned technology" fallacy.
Just because rail is a "19th century" technology doesn't mean it isn't relevant for the 21st century. At least not by the "reasoning" behind this favorite fallacy of transit-bashers.
Please don't use this fallacy again. To remind you why, I point out that
reinforced concrete is a ROMAN technology only recently rediscovered in the early 20th century. Even though this is a two millenia old technology, it is still very useful for various purposes, including building roads.
Mike Setty
www.publictransit.us
Mike, We can use your expertise. Please review page 32 of 'Great Rail Disasters' by Randal. He has Portland light-rail at .39% of Freeway Lane Mile. Here in San Jose recently light-rail has been at 10% of Freeway Lane Mile as roads are planned to come to a stop by road congestion.
Thanks,
Lowell
Thanks,
Lowell
Lowell:
I'm sure Randal meant 39% of a typical freeway lane mile, adjusted for auto occupancies (1.6, I think). But I can't account for typos in Disasters. If you account for freeway lane auto occupancies, this percentage translates in the approximate transit traffic density for Portland MAX.
Of course, throwing out such comparisons without additional contextual information is not very useful for anyone trying to make sense of Randal's anti-rail and my pro-rail arguments.
Mike Setty
msetty@publictransit.us
Post a Comment
I'm sure Randal meant 39% of a typical freeway lane mile, adjusted for auto occupancies (1.6, I think). But I can't account for typos in Disasters. If you account for freeway lane auto occupancies, this percentage translates in the approximate transit traffic density for Portland MAX.
Of course, throwing out such comparisons without additional contextual information is not very useful for anyone trying to make sense of Randal's anti-rail and my pro-rail arguments.
Mike Setty
msetty@publictransit.us
