Austin's Traffic FUTURE Nightmare? (lease, houses, buying)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by cBach

Actually I think there is a difference. There is a lot more "temporal" capacity than "physical" capacity.

A 15% reduction of cars is far less effective than spreading 100% of the traffic over X minutes.

However, I do agree that taking 15% of the cars off I-35 and placing them on 130 would yield more than a 15% reduction in traffic on I-35 (i.e. not linear).

If you reduce traffic so that at any given point there is 15% fewer automobiles it makes no difference whether those cars were spread out over time or moved to a different freeway altogether - the effect is exactly the same.

One, very efficient way, to do this shift is through dynamic pricing of tolls.

Oh, and BTW - the 15% figure represents just the traffic that can be moved efficiently onto SH130. If you consider 183 as an alternative that number likely doubles. Removing this much congestion off IH 35 would effectively solve all problems for the foreseeable future.

It can be done. There is absolutely no technical reason why it can't be done. It isn't expensive to do - in fact, it would likely yield net revenues rather than deficits.

The only obstacles to doing it, in fact, are political.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Komeht

ORLY - quick question for you: would you consider say, a NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST, to be reputable?

Well, since that group includes Paul Krugman, I would have to say no. He's a hack.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by scm53

Well, since that group includes Paul Krugman, I would have to say no. He's a hack.

You may not agree with Krugman's political leanings and writings (I highly highly doubt you have read any of his economic treatise or are qualified to understand them let alone critique them, that aside), but his reputation, I can assure you, as an economist, is well intact.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

ORLY - quick question for you: would you consider say, a NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST, to be reputable?

Yeah, you don't get the point I was making, do you?

[10scoachrick]

[quote=cBach;32668058
However, I do agree that taking 15% of the cars off I-35 and placing them on 130 would yield more than a 15% reduction in traffic on I-35 (i.e. not linear).[/quote]
Run that by me again... How do you measure 'traffic' if not by the number of vehicles?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Yeah, you don't get the point I was making, do you?

You stated, and I quote exactly: "There isn't a reputable economists who believes in "induced demand." It's a nonsense."

My question is a really simple one for you: Would you consider a nobel prize winning economist to be "reputable"?

I'm guessing you'll just try to dodge it - so I'll move on from you.

For anyone else, Induced Demand isn't fictional - it's a well studied area of economics and transport planning and accounts for the fact that a large number of traffic forecasts made over several decades were simply incorrect because they did not consider these effects.

[Decidigi]

The SF Bay area has 2 rather nifty ways of handling freeway congestion. I happened to live there when they all started to go in, and remember all the bitching and moaning. Last time I went through during rush hour, I have to say that it all worked lovely - except the 101 which was always a pain in the rear.

The 1st is metering lights on the on ramps. They let 1-2 cars through every few seconds based on road capacity. At peak times, the wait time is longer. The 2nd is free carpool lanes, that come with a really hefty ticket if you get caught in it without 2 or more passengers in your vehicle. CHP LOVES those tickets, they really, really do. It has the nice effect of incentivizing carpooling, which gets cars off the road, and gets people to work faster - win win really.

I don't get Austin's love for toll roads. I know it comes in part from the die-hard NIMBYs, but the traffic has to go somewhere. It makes everyone happier if you're not sitting for hours and hours in 103* temps while your ac threatens to die.

[cBach]

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is to direct the growth of Austin eastward. There is already spare capacity in that area, with 183 and SH 130. So, create incentives that perhaps encourages businesses to locate along those corridors. So if a high tech company wanted to place an office along Research Blvd in N. Austin, redirect them to place it along 183 between 290 and 71 with incentives or somewhere along SH-130.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You may not agree with Krugman's political leanings and writings (I highly highly doubt you have read any of his economic treatise or are qualified to understand them let alone critique them, that aside), but his reputation, I can assure you, as an economist, is well intact.

Well, you ass-ume wrong. I've read both Diminished Expectations and Peddling Prosperity and they are political documents disguised as scholarly - polemics in search of rationalization. He can't separate the two. So, his sycophants may exalt him, and consider his "reputation well intact." Doesn't make him right.

As far as the award, not like a Nobel Committee hasn't ever given out an award to a completely undeserving candidate merely because his politics pleased them. And it is a whole 'nother story that Alfred Nobel never established a prize in Economics ...

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You stated, and I quote exactly: "There isn't a reputable economists who believes in "induced demand." It's a nonsense."

My question is a really simple one for you: Would you consider a nobel prize winning economist to be "reputable"?

I'm guessing you'll just try to dodge it - so I'll move on from you.

For anyone else, Induced Demand isn't fictional - it's a well studied area of economics and transport planning and accounts for the fact that a large number of traffic forecasts made over several decades were simply incorrect because they did not consider these effects.

Um, no, "induced demand" is merely a non-economic way of talking about a (much simplified) version of elasticity of demand. That's why Krugman wouldn't use the phrase. It contributes to a completely idiotic policy argument that, somehow, building more roads is futile.

And note: "supplier-induced demand" is not the same concept at all.