In this thread, let's talk about various transit modes options that OKC could implement. I'm not just talking theory but specific examples that are working in other cities that the RTD or Embark should look at doing here.

The run-down to date, OKC's transit options include EMBARK metropolitan bus network, OKC Streetcar, El Reno's Heritage Trolley, and two suburban companies - CityLink Edmond and CART Norman. The metro area has also passed its RTA (regional transit authority), yet to be named, with plans for Commuter Rail from Edmond, Norman, and Midwest City to Downtown with Commuter Bus likely for other suburban routes.

EMBARK is set to implement BRT likely along NW Expressway-Classen-Downtown routing. EMBARK has also implemented expansion of evening and night bus, Sunday operations, and reroutes. EMBARK is looking to expand its Western Hub.

Please add if I've missed anything. Also, let's talk about specifics such as buses, trains, and routing.

Commuter Bus:

One thing that has worked out here in the Seattle area are Commuter Buses. We have several transit companies and a regional, all operate commuter bus from suburb or peer city (Tacoma) to/from Downtown Seattle.

Of course I'd like to see this implemented in OKC, which could begin ahead of the RTD Commuter Rail. Commuter Bus could still be used on other suburban routes not getting rail, such as El Reno/Yukon-Downtown, Tuttle/Mustang-Downtown, and Shawnee-Downtown.

But one thing I think OKC should strongly consider is the purchase and operation of double decker buses. Surprisingly, they're not that much taller than a regular bus (at 13.5 feet or so) yet hold significantly more people than a regular "local" bus. There's also the advantage of not being as LONG as articulated buses - which I hope we also get, but the double decker buses could quickly remove the 'stigma' some have of transit in general. Here are some pics.

Alexander Dennis Enviro500 (https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/double-deck-3-axle/) Double Decker bus

Sound Transit (Seattle RTA)
15448

Community Transit (Seattle - North transit ops)
15450 next to articulated (great comparison)

Translink (Vancouver)
15449

15454 inside, lower deck

15452 stairs

15451 inside, upstairs

15453 upstairs front seats (best on the bus)



Now imagine if we got 5 or so of these pronto and started the in demand Norman/Moore-Downtown and Edmond-Downtown routes. Surely would generate buzz for commuter transit in OKC and help create the captive audience that would use the OKC Streetcar in its current configuration.

I would like to see a hook up area for the west of the metro area folks. Possibly around Yukon, to cover the Yukon, Mustang and El Reno area. The new neighborhoods growing in this area are bountiful.

If it was non-stop from Yukon to the transfer station in DT I would ride it nearly everyday. I love these double decker buses.

On double decks is our bridges tall enough to support? Like the May over NWE bridge how tall is its limit? And any others?

On double decks is our bridges tall enough to support? Like the May over NWE bridge how tall is its limit? And any others?

Since these would be commuter buses I believe they would stick mostly to I-40, I-35/Broadway Ext, I-44. Most of which have plenty of clearance. NWE is getting BRT so I don't think we would want to overlap it with commuter bus.

Since these would be commuter buses I believe they would stick mostly to I-40, I-35/Broadway Ext, I-44. Most of which have plenty of clearance. NWE is getting BRT so I don't think we would want to overlap it with commuter bus.

What is BRT? I thought NWE was getting more buses and I like the doubles.

What is BRT? I thought NWE was getting more buses and I like the doubles.

BRT is bus rapid transit.

"What is BRT?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE

Those double deck buses look nice. Didn't OKC opt to the smaller more economy size buses because of low ridership.

If we had a couple operating on our most traveled routes, wonder how they might positively impact ridership.

My only concern with the double deck buses is safety--would Embark need to a hire security monitor with the upper deck being away from the driver.

HotRod, how is this handled in Seattle?

Those double deck buses look nice. Didn't OKC opt to the smaller more economy size buses because of low ridership.

If we had a couple operating on our most traveled routes, wonder how they might positively impact ridership.

My only concern with the double deck buses is safety--would Embark need to a hire security monitor with the upper deck being away from the driver.

HotRod, how is this handled in Seattle?

Are buses really that bad in terms of safety in the US? I assume double deckers have cameras in them, but whenever I have been one them in Europe there was no extra security personnel, just cameras.

If it was non-stop from Yukon to the transfer station in DT I would ride it nearly everyday. I love these double decker buses.

That's my idea actually and is exactly what we have here in the Seattle metro. Commuter Bus that stops at suburban pnr and transit centers then is non-stop (or maybe one-stop) to downtown.

My idea for the west metro Commuter Bus would be:

* Route 440 El Reno to Downtown: Stops: El Reno (downtown) -> Yukon (downtown) -> OKC Shoppes (PNR) -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along I-40. Bus signage: Oklahoma City (Inbound), El Reno -> via Yukon (outbound).

Other ideas since I'm on a role (lol):

**Route 400 OU to Downtown (Express): Stops: OU Lindsey PnR -> Crossroads PnR -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along I-35, no other stops. Bus signage: Oklahoma City Express (inbound), University of Oklahoma -> via Crossroads (outbound). Runs reverse rush hours (6am-9am outbound, 4pm-7pm inbound) every 20 minutes with service the other direction every hour during period (ie 3 one way, 1 goes back per rush hour), 11am-2pm every 30 minutes, 9am-11am, 2pm-4pm, 7pm-10pm every hour. Using double decker buses.

*Route 401 Purcell to Downtown: Stops: Purcell (PnR) -> OU (Lindsey PnR) -> Norman (downtown) -> Moore (I-35) -> Crossroads PNR -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along I-35. Bus signage: Oklahoma City (inbound), Purcell, via Norman (outbound). Using articulated buses. Commuter Rail route: This route would retire once commuter rail is established.

**Route 402 Norman to Downtown (Express): Stops: Norman (downtown) -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along I-35. Bus Signage: Oklahoma City EXPRESS (inbound), Norman EXPRESS (outbound). This would operate during crush rush hours in addition to 401, no other stops. Using double decker buses.

**Route 410 Edmond to Downtown (Express): Stops: Edmond (downtown) -> N OKC PnR -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along I-235. Bus Signage: Oklahoma City EXPRESS (inbound), Edmond EXPRESS (outbound). This would operate during crush rush hours in addition to 411, no other stops. Using double decker buses.

*Route 411 Guthrie to Downtown: Stops: Guthrie -> Guthrie Airport PnR -> Edmond (downtown) -> N OKC PnR -> N 63rd and I-235 -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along I-35 then I-235. Bus signage: Oklahoma City (inbound), Guthrie -> via Edmond (outbound). Using articulated buses. Commuter Rail route: This route would retire once commuter rail is established.

*Route 420 Midwest City to Downtown: Stops: MWC Tinker Town Center -> MWC downtown -> Del City (I-40) -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along I-40. Bus signage: Oklahoma City (inbound), Midwest City -> via Del City (outbound). Using double decker buses. Commuter Rail route: This route would retire once commuter rail is established.

*Route 440 El Reno to Downtown: Stops: El Reno (downtown) -> Yukon -> OKC Shoppes PNR -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along I-40. Bus signage: Oklahoma City (Inbound), El Reno -> via Yukon (outbound). Using double decker buses.

**Route 450 Airport to Downtown: Stops: Will Rogers World Airport terminal -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along airport road then I-44 then I-40. Bus signage: Downtown OKC EXPRESS (inbound), Airport EXPRESS (outbound). Using articulated buses.

*Route 451 Mustang to Downtown: Stops: Mustang PnR -> Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center PnR -> Will Rogers Airport terminal -> Downtown OKC Terminal. Travel along airport road then I-40. Bus signage: Downtown OKC (inbound), Mustang -> via Airport (outbound). Using articulated buses.



key notes:

1) all of these commuter bus routes are express in nature (very limited stop as noted). This is the beauty of Commuter Bus (and Commuter Rail) in that they are fast within the metropolitan city (no local stops), which also justifies the higher fare.

This differentiates them from local and BRT, both of which have many more stops along local streets.

2) several commuter bus routes have EXPRESS designation. This is where there may be demand for crush rush hour traffic only (inbound 5:30am-8am, outbound 4pm-6:30pm every 15-20 min) and even more limited stops. Also EXPRESS are one directional service only, (am -Inbound, pm -Outbound) unless noted.

Normal commuter bus is every 60 min 8am-11am, 2pm-4pm, 7pm-10pm, every 30 min 11am-2pm.

3) all of these commuter bus routes utilize the freeway system. This also differentiates them from local bus and BRT, which hardly use freeways.

4) Commuter Bus routes generally have a bias for service inbound in the am rush hour and outbound during the pm rush hour, with more limited frequency during the rest of the day depending upon demand. There would be a lunch rush hours that would be equal outbound/inbound with outbound starting first.

5) there may likely also be some local bus routes that also go to the commuter bus stop(s). Prime example would be:

* EMBARK 150 Airport to Downtown. Stops: All along route. Travel from Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center area to the Airport Terminal then along Meridian to Reno to Downtown OKC Terminal. Bus Signage: Downtown (inbound), Airport (outbound).

This route would be in addition to the Commuter Bus 440 route, but would be local and make every stop along the way. This would be useful for employees and would run all day/night where 440 would be much more restricted.

LEGEND
LOCAL Bus (EMBARK)
COMMUTER Bus (OKC RTA)

Honest, if we could implement these few routes (would we even need more? maybe Piedmont/Kingfisher, Shawnee and Choctaw I guess, perhaps Chickasaw/Tuttle and Stillwater/Langston long term??) we would really be set as a metro area. Add this to enhanced local Embark service in the city and in local suburbs.. OMG.

I wish we could get these Commuter Bus routes up-and-running asap to build the commuter base; implementing commuter rail to routes along rail corridors as funding gets established.

On double decks is our bridges tall enough to support? Like the May over NWE bridge how tall is its limit? And any others?

Our (Community Transit) double decker buses (https://www.communitytransit.org/busservice/doubletall) are 14 feet tall and there is an even shorter option useful for older/urban areas. I believe Interstate bridge standards regulate height well above 15 feet. I don't think OKC will have any problem, outside of downtown but even those skywalks appear to be higher than 14 feet agl.

BTW, we wouldn't likely do double deckers on NWX in the inner part since that's a BRT (bus rapid transit) corridor which tend to use special articulated buses. Even a possible Commuter Bus route Kingfisher/Piedmont -> NW OKC -> Downtown would go along NWX from the NW then turn on I-44 well before it got to the low bridge at May.

The double decker buses work fine here in the northern Seattle area into Downtown Seattle (but I don't think there's a single skywalk). Surprisingly, they aren't used in the South Seattle and Tacoma metros. ....

Since these would be commuter buses I believe they would stick mostly to I-40, I-35/Broadway Ext, I-44. Most of which have plenty of clearance. NWE is getting BRT so I don't think we would want to overlap it with commuter bus.

oops sorry Paddy. I didn't see your response. ...

as for security, with all our buses we use cameras in the Seattle area and we have transit police operated by the county the agency resides in. These transit police have normal police cars that say "transit police" and they only police transit buses, stops, and centers/pnrs.

OKC could do the same or have OKCPS (and other agencies) police. The nice thing of how we do it here, is transit policing doesn't compete or interfere with other jurisdictions. Also, any offence is governed by the laws of the transit district/agency and not by the city/county/etc which helps with venue and eliminates boundaries.

Venue may not be as much of an issue for OKC since the buses would be principally in Oklahoma County with very small injections into Cleveland/McClain and W Canadian counties (maybe Logan, Pottawattomie and Kingfisher later) but for us here it is useful since the bus starts in one county but ends in King County (Seattle) for example - any violation is the call of the transit policing district not exclusively where the crime actually happened.

Here you;ll often find transit police tailing buses, the buses themselves have a beacon that can be activated by the driver which anonymously alerts transit police of trouble onboard.. The double deckers are so new and shiny (and a bit more expensive commuter routes) that trouble doesn't seem to dare come. lol.

I've even experienced their entry on a BRT bus (articulated) I was riding on where King County Metro Transit police quickly retrieved a trouble maker. The trouble maker had been back in the bus ranting and trying to start something, the bus driver activated the beacon, transit police followed to the next safe stop, then the bus sat and the transit police entered and apprehended the individual, then we're back on our way. lol.

I think that's something OKC will really like, even with articulated buses. Commuter Routes tend to not have any riff raff troublemakers at all. Honestly, this is another reason why I'm hopeful that OKC can get commuter bus running on the short - it will build customer base quickly because being "safer" definitely in perception (and action) that will help Oklahoman's get used to transit in general.

Just like one poster mentioned, take Commuter Bus from Yukon to downtown then the streetcar or local bus (or walk) to destination. Then the other way after work/play. That's the idea, removing the car along the way.

also keep in mind, we use double deckers only for Commuter Bus. Not for BRT or local.

The only city I know of that uses double deckers for local bus is London (and Hong Kong). OKC is no where as dense to justify local bus with double deckers.

But OKC is perfect for 10 or so double deckers to use for commuter bus!! :)

everyone, I apologize in advance for the delay in my response. :) I just looked and noticed I had several posts one after another, as I answered questions or provided more info to some posts/comments.

just a problem with being on different time zones - but I am very happy to share my experiences if they can help OKC.

Transit projects seek $87.2M from MAPS4 (https://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=634-Transit-projects-seeks-87-2M-from-MAPS4)

Presentation summary regarding public transit enhancements proposed for MAPS4, totaling $87.2 million:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119x.jpg


12-14 miles of high frequency (12-15 minute) Bus Rapid Transit connecting to larger system
Weekday bus service frequency of 30 minutes or better for all OKC bus routes
500 new ADA accessible covered bus shelters
Security and safety lighting at every bus stop
Multiple safe and secure park and ride facilities
Technology-based transportation and connectivity solutions Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) at half the signalized intersections on bus routes
Integrate micro-transit mobility options into EMBARK family of services



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119i.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119j.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119k.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119f.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119g.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/transit073119h.jpg

12-15 mins headways is NOT high frequency.

that's actually perfect frequency for BRT and what I'd expect a city like OKC to have.

my son and I took a trip yesterday in the Seattle area transit where we rode Commuter Bus, Light Rail, BRT, and then local mini-bus. I took photos particularly from the double decker Commuter Bus; I'll post here shortly as this may give you all an idea of the different transit modes and how we used them up here. ...

Perfect frequency for mediocre ridership maybe. Come on. Outside of rush hour that should be minimum frequency. During rush hour we should be looking at 5-7 minute headways.

Perfect frequency for mediocre ridership maybe. Come on. Outside of rush hour that should be minimum frequency. During rush hour we should be looking at 5-7 minute headways.

Yeah, I have to say I found that a bit disappointing. At minimum it should be 10 minutes along a BRT route IMO. Back in Jersey City where I grew up (where public transit is relied upon by the entire city), regular buses typically came 12-15 minutes apart -- only on weekends on off routes were one-hour-type frequencies encountered. I know we're not an urban city in the Northeast, but it is still a bit sad that our state-of-the-art "high-frequency" bus route is what is typical on all bus routes in other cities.

Yeah, I have to say I found that a bit disappointing. At minimum it should be 10 minutes along a BRT route IMO. Back in Jersey City where I grew up (where public transit is relied upon by the entire city), regular buses typically came 12-15 minutes apart -- only on weekends on off routes were one-hour-type frequencies encountered. I know we're not an urban city in the Northeast, but it is still a bit sad that our state-of-the-art "high-frequency" bus route is what is typical on all bus routes in other cities.
If you want some interesting notes on BRT read this study: https://iurd.berkeley.edu/wp/2013-01.pdf

Shows in some lines with high ridership headways are minimum 12-30 seconds per bus depending on time of day. Extreme examples and Europe certainly is no model for BRT service. South America and Asia should be used as models for BRT, IMHO, and Bogota or Buenos Aires having pretty successful ridership numbers perhaps OKC could consult from them. We all know that isn't happening and the best advice OKC likely will find will be from Dallas or Houston? :/

okc can't support those headways in any corridor outside of rush hours. sorry. This isn't NY, Chicago we're talking about folks. ...

12-15 on Classen/NWX is perfectly appropriate, especially considering there will be other local bus in the corridors along with the BRT. In fact, I don't think we/Seattle have any BRT headways shorter than 12-15 min either despite being quite a bit more dense and more demand here. ...

And to be honest, IF we're wrong and OKC shows it can support shorter headways than 12-15 min then it is so easy to implement. That's the beauty of BRT, there is no fixed schedule; the bus does the route turns around and goes the other way and vise versa. Unlike local and commuter bus/rail which are scheduled and often spur to become other routes at the termini.

I feel like they either need to reduce the number of stops or give the thing its own damn lane. It wouldn't be hard and I doubt it would cause any traffic woes. Might actually get a few cars off the road by becoming a more attractive option for some folks. Put up some vertical dilineators and allow bikes to ride there too. Kill two birds with one stone.

BRT typically does have reduced number of stops.

I'd place BRT in the heirarchy as follows, most stops to least:

local bus -> streetcar/tram -> BRT -> light rail -> metro/subway -> Commuter Bus -> Commuter Rail -> Express Bus/Rail

with OKC implementing will have the three modes with the most stops but BRT tends to be a stop every half mile or so, or think of one stop for an entire district. The idea is the bus is rail like, so BRT is very similar to light rail in stops/frequency but obviously will tend to have more given the lower cost.

Oh, and BRT requires dedicated platforms that are significantly different than local bus; again, think of a light rail platform but a bus comes by instead of a train. Finally, typically BRT has tap on/off at the station platform.

In congested areas, BRT will have dedicated lanes. I don't think OKC really needs dedicated lanes other than maybe along Classen. There will be dedicated lanes to/from platforms, this is usually sufficient for an OKC style BRT (and much less expensive to implement, meaning MORE miles/longer route).

This is all to help expedite the trip, like riding a light rail train.

I totally agree with you about the bike lanes, your vision is exactly how I envision Classen, not so much NW Expressway though as you'd really want grade separated bike lanes there.

BRT typically does have reduced number of stops.

I'd place BRT in the heirarchy as follows, most stops to least:

local bus -> streetcar/tram -> BRT -> light rail -> metro/subway -> Commuter Bus -> Commuter Rail -> Express Bus/Rail

with OKC implementing will have the three modes with the most stops but BRT tends to be a stop every half mile or so, or think of one stop for an entire district. The idea is the bus is rail like, so BRT is very similar to light rail in stops/frequency but obviously will tend to have more given the lower cost.

Oh, and BRT requires dedicated platforms that are significantly different than local bus; again, think of a light rail platform but a bus comes by instead of a train. Finally, typically BRT has tap on/off at the station platform.

In congested areas, BRT will have dedicated lanes. I don't think OKC really needs dedicated lanes other than maybe along Classen. There will be dedicated lanes to/from platforms, this is usually sufficient for an OKC style BRT (and much less expensive to implement, meaning MORE miles/longer route).

This is all to help expedite the trip, like riding a light rail train.

I totally agree with you about the bike lanes, your vision is exactly how I envision Classen, not so much NW Expressway though as you'd really want grade separated bike lanes there.

except OKC is not getting BRT ...... what okc is getting is more like enhanced bus

I feel like they either need to reduce the number of stops or give the thing its own damn lane. It wouldn't be hard and I doubt it would cause any traffic woes. Might actually get a few cars off the road by becoming a more attractive option for some folks. Put up some vertical dilineators and allow bikes to ride there too. Kill two birds with one stone.
Mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion in a vast majority of cases and almost never in car dominant cities.

Mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion in a vast majority of cases and almost never in car dominant cities.

Adding lanes to existing roadways does not reduce traffic congestion.

The only true way to reduce traffic congestion is to shorten commutes and increasing density.

Adding lanes to existing roadways does not reduce traffic congestion..

Yes it does. Adding the proper number of lanes reduces congestion and it worked with the Kilpatrick turnpike and the crosstown.

It reduced traffic contention in SLC. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/06/05/global-study-says-salt/

But nice changing the subject. Keep on spouting your induced demand bs.

You cling on to your last statement like it something that can't be accomplished without borderline near totalitarian tactics but your wishes are idealistic and won't ever happen.

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/wsdot-demonstrates-that-adding-general-purpose-capacity-on-i-405-reduces-traffic-congestion-and-toll-rates

But keeping your strongtown articles that cherry pick data from LA, Houston, NYC, and notoriously congestion metros that only added one lane each way on freeways that needed much more and call it induced demand because they didn’t do anything to reduce congestion. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure it out. :Smiley130:doh:

Adding lanes to existing roadways does not reduce traffic congestion.

The only true way to reduce traffic congestion is to shorten commutes and increasing density.

DC is one of the most urban cities on Earth, and their traffic is ignorantly bad. As are Seattle and PDX, and their traffic sucks, as well. NYC is supremely dense, and their traffic sucks, as well. Boston, Philly, etc. Need we go on?

Mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion in a vast majority of cases and almost never in car dominant cities.

Am I reading this wrong, or are you saying that mass transit doesn't reduce road congestion in cities with mass transit?

I ask, because that would mean you think traffic congestion wouldn't increase in those cities if those systems shut down... how is that possible?

DC is one of the most urban cities on Earth, and their traffic is ignorantly bad. As are Seattle and PDX, and their traffic sucks, as well. NYC is supremely dense, and their traffic sucks, as well. Boston, Philly, etc. Need we go on?

But in those examples, you have a choice to sit in that congestion or not, because there are other ways to get around. Obviously, NYC is the best example. I don't know why anyone would get in a car in NYC below the park. I wouldn't do it anywhere in Manhattan before 8pm, but especially not in Mid Town or Downtown.

Yes it does. Adding the proper number of lanes reduces congestion and it worked with the Kilpatrick turnpike and the crosstown.

It reduced traffic contention in SLC. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/06/05/global-study-says-salt/

But nice changing the subject. Keep on spouting your induced demand bs.

You cling on to your last statement like it something that can't be accomplished without borderline near totalitarian tactics but your wishes are idealistic and won't ever happen.

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/wsdot-demonstrates-that-adding-general-purpose-capacity-on-i-405-reduces-traffic-congestion-and-toll-rates

But keeping your strongtown articles that cherry pick data from LA, Houston, NYC, and notoriously congestion metros that only added one lane each way on freeways that needed much more and call it induced demand because they didn’t do anything to reduce congestion. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure it out. :Smiley130:doh:

You got all that from my last sentence?

Also I don’t trust these cherry picked sources you are citing.

Look at the Katy Freeway for proof that lanes don’t help. Thing is 26 lanes wide and backs up on the reg.

DC is one of the most urban cities on Earth, and their traffic is ignorantly bad. As are Seattle and PDX, and their traffic sucks, as well. NYC is supremely dense, and their traffic sucks, as well. Boston, Philly, etc. Need we go on?


The traffic doesn’t suck for the people who live close to where they are going :P

Like I said, density and short travel distances best way to reduce traffic congestion. If your not in traffic it’s kinda hard to be affected by traffic.

It reduced traffic contention in SLC. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/06/05/global-study-says-salt/

Wait a second, from that article:


The study says Salt Lake City, Portland and New Haven improved for similar reasons: sophisticated traffic light optimization, expanded bike lanes and rental possibilities, and better transit options.

Are you referring to adding lanes by reversing some lanes at certain times of day, aka their "flex lanes"? If so, that wasn't cited as the only reason traffic congestion was reduced and it specifically cites transit as one cause of reduced congestion, and you had just posted that "Mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion in a vast majority of cases and almost never in car dominant cities."

I must be super confused on what your point of posting that article is.

The traffic doesn’t suck for the people who live close to where they are going :P

Like I said, density and short travel distances best way to reduce traffic congestion. If your not in traffic it’s kinda hard to be affected by traffic.

But moving isn't cheap, either. Just saying. Might be easier to have the city spend money than requiring every citizen to move close to their work.

But moving isn't cheap, either. Just saying. Might be easier to have the city spend money than requiring every citizen to move close to their work.

Not require them to move, just not cater to them not moving. When the city spends money, every citizen spends money. so right now we require every citizen to spend money so some people can move further away from work. And every lane we add trying to help congestion hurts the citizens between points A and B. No one wants to live next to an 8 lane road. So why we punish people who live where everything is in order to save 5 min of commute time for someone who wants to live 30 miles from work will always be lost on me. And to then to add insult to injury we make the people who now have to live next to an 8 lane nightmare pay for it.

No one would allow an 8 lane road be built directly through their housing addition, and yet we expect the people who live in Lincoln Terrace to be perfectly OK with it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

So why we punish people who live where everything is in order to save 5 min of commute time for someone who wants to live 30 miles from work will always be lost on me. And to then to add insult to injury we make the people who now have to live next to an 8 lane nightmare pay for it.

Well, but in any economic growth model, access to work centers from lower cost of living areas or even just different living options will be needed. If you can live in a city close to where you work, part of the economic engine is fed by workers from outside of that area. There would have to be a large inventory of housing to keep living costs down to a reasonable level where everyone could live close to where they work.

Of course, that doesn't mean 8 lane highways are the only way to provide that access, but the person living close to where they work is always going to help pay for any publicly funded transportation infrastructure, and they do benefit from that economically, even if they don't personally use it.

Well, but in any economic growth model, access to work centers from lower cost of living areas or even just different living options will be needed. If you can live in a city close to where you work, part of the economic engine is fed by workers from outside of that area. There would have to be a large inventory of housing to keep living costs down to a reasonable level where everyone could live close to where they work.

Of course, that doesn't mean 8 lane highways are the only way to provide that access, but the person living close to where they work is always going to help pay for any publicly funded transportation infrastructure, and they do benefit from that economically, even if they don't personally use it.

I absolutely agree. This IMO is why commuter rail, bus, BRT, Street cars and bike lanes become that much more beneficial. They can be utilized to enhance access to employment centers from these outer areas with a greatly reduced impact on the existing community. I just believe we need to take the impact these massive roads have on the neighborhoods they cut through. making it slightly easier for one area of town to drive into the city center at the expense of thousands of existing residents that lie in between just seems counterproductive to me.

Am I reading this wrong, or are you saying that mass transit doesn't reduce road congestion in cities with mass transit?

I ask, because that would mean you think traffic congestion wouldn't increase in those cities if those systems shut down... how is that possible?
In Hong Kong their transit system was shut down and traffic congestion actually reduced. The reason I point that out is because it isn't as simple as you're trying to make it to be. LA is aggressively expand it's mass transit and the Expo line did nothing to reduce traffic congestion on the 10 a corridor it parallels. In most cases, no mass transit does not reduce traffic congestion as it encourages density and more density almost always means more traffic.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp57-density.htm

Admittedly, as with the prior link(which I will address in a separate post) some contradict or dismiss my points as not valid but that doesn't mean the premise of the article is correct. In fact I'm providing both sides of the story trying to be as fair as possible and you can draw your own conclusions.

Here is one of those:

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/04/public-transportation-does-relieve-traffic-congestion-just-not-everywhere/5149/

Why mass transit sucks and ultimately those who like it are in a small minority. The point is why ideas like those shared by GoGators are nothing more than fantasies they want to see happen that don't align with the realities of the world. My views are closer to middle in this case though I still support massive freeways. If me vouching for better mass transit and walkability in OKC as shown on this thread doesn't make that clear enough and my support alone for car based infrastructure makes you think I'm biased for one side of the equation I'd ask you rethink that view of me. Any rate here is this article which really sums up how me and many many others feel about mass transit and ultimately why it doesn't reduce congestion as most people might want it built but they won't use it: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a26962411/trains-suck-huffman-column-opinion/?src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_medium=social-media&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR09I-Y6gtHubYl41qzj1j_GhZuQxR0_fZ0mrfYW9s9bbAjZ052tVqcK 7Ic

Case of the Expo line from DTLA to Santa Monica which Metro had billboards up claiming traffic times would be reduced on the 10 but in fact the complete opposite has been true. In fact many negative consequences has become known since its opening:


Light rail projects are booming around the United States. Reports from the National Transit Database show that between 1991 and 2012, light rail transit capacity increased from 27 million to 99 million service miles nationally. Light rail service, in fact, has grown at a higher rate than bus, subway, and other public transit modes. Los Angeles is part of this trend. LA Metro has the most ambitious urban rail transit development program in the U.S.: Projects worth approximately $8 billion are currently under construction. The first segment of the Los Angeles Expo Line, between Culver City and Downtown LA, opened in 2012 as part of this widespread recent investment.

One of the common justifications for investing in light rail is its potential to reduce roadway traffic congestion. Yet, little evidence exists to support this claim. There are many studies of the impacts of light rail, but few have examined its impacts specifically on traffic congestion.

- https://transfersmagazine.org/does-light-rail-reduce-traffic/


What we learned

Our research suggests that the Expo Line Phase 1 had a modest and highly localized impact on weekday peak-period roadway traffic system performance within the first 5 to 7 months of opening. The number of daily Expo Line trips was small compared to the total volume of traffic within the service corridor, so even if all Expo Line riders were previous car users, it is unlikely that the reduction in traffic volume would translate into significant improvements in speed and travel time reliability within the highly congested corridor.

and even with that article painting a rather neutral but pro LRT picture I'd still be suspicious of their findings as they have some inaccurate claims like travel times improving on Venice which anecdotally driving that road several times a day I can tell you is BS but the traffic counts which are up don't lie either.

https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/ladot-traffic-counts-summary-2485d/resource/db98a41e-2d79-4119-a049-be186f0ca162?inner_span=True

or this interactive map can be more helpful to find traffic counts on Venice to help you understand the rising traffic counts despite the previous articles claims of faster traffic which is NOT the case:

https://ladot.lacity.org/node/576

You got all that from my last sentence?

Also I don’t trust these cherry picked sources you are citing.

Look at the Katy Freeway for proof that lanes don’t help. Thing is 26 lanes wide and backs up on the reg.

Yes I did.

Okay since you want to play that game name a freeway that was widened and traffic increased with higher end to end travel times and I'll give you two examples each of freeway projects are the country where they stayed the same. We are already at that since I gave you two examples of freeways that were widened and congestion didn't increase in OKC and you gave me an example of a freeway in a notoriously congested city that already had many of its freeways during rush hour congested just like I said you would in the same city I said you would so I will wait for you examples. The Katy freeway needs more lanes. It is as simple as that. X amount of cars move through there per hour and x amount of lanes can handle it. Cars won't magically appear out of thin air so the drivers can sit in traffic. Reality just doesn't work like that.

Cherry picked sources means I can give you plenty of examples of the hundreds of freeway widenings that have occurred over the last decade a small percentage of them are still congested and even smaller amount were just as congested as they were when they first reopened with more lanes AND an even smaller amount were more congested. The anomalies to that, once again, are in cities like ATL, LA, HOUSTON, NYC, etc. cities that are massive with millions and millions of people moving.

Your fantasy of placing people closer to where they work is bs and not happening.

Given the circumstances, the Katy freeway flows pretty good for much of the day though well below targeted speeds isn't nearly as bad with end to end travel times being much lower than many freeways with less lanes. Measuring traffic congestion with hours lost is easily skewed by a disproportionate modal share and thus, though beneficial in some ways, mainly used to show a freeway or its respective city suffers from nightmarish congestion without providing the entire picture. Better used for cities like LA to try and scream induced demand is real and not the case of NYC which has more freeway lane miles per person yet arguably worse traffic even though depending on the method of measurement you could make the case in the opposite direction. It is completely worthless to those who commute there and is a prime example of why empirical data can easily be spun to back up or dismiss induced demand.

http://freakonomics.com/2009/02/24/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-freeways/

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-york-traffic-manhattan-20180124-story.html

Wait a second, from that article:



Are you referring to adding lanes by reversing some lanes at certain times of day, aka their "flex lanes"? If so, that wasn't cited as the only reason traffic congestion was reduced and it specifically cites transit as one cause of reduced congestion, and you had just posted that "Mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion in a vast majority of cases and almost never in car dominant cities."

I must be super confused on what your point of posting that article is.

Yes I read the article. The modal share of SLC is, like most cities, heavily in favor of the car. My guess would be, as in most cities, car ownership is rising regardless of mode share changes. UDOT is building a handful of new freeways in SLC and opening lanes left and right. It shows induced demand is BS. If it were true than all of those new lanes opening up would cause congestion to increase in SLC but that clearly isn't the case. Regardless of what the article claims, it shows congestion it becoming less prevalent in SLC in a time when projects like these are occurring:

YouTube page with a grocery list of projects U/C or recently completed: https://www.youtube.com/user/UtahDOT

It backs up my beliefs that induced demand is fallacy. It exists but to a small extent. Latent demand is the real issue but no urbanists wants to acknowledge that as opposed to induced demand, latent demand supports the theory of adding more lanes to a freeway.

No one would allow an 8 lane road be built directly through their housing addition, and yet we expect the people who live in Lincoln Terrace to be perfectly OK with it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.This is such a sorry argument. No one would allow a two lane train track to be built through their neighborhood. Please and examples you give I can you just as many with freeways being built through neighborhoods. Infrastructure has to be built. If you can't handle it move away from the city. Lincoln BLVD isn't an 8 lane being built through Lincoln Terrace. Unfortunately for them or those who have a problem with it their housing development sits in an area where this infrastructure is needed. Plenty of housing additions where it isn't. The world isn't fair. Some housing additions will be closer to large infrastructure and some will be further away.

Mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion in a vast majority of cases and almost never in car dominant cities.

Here is a tweet from LA Metro - the transit authority in one of the most car dependent cities on earth - with a visualization on how public transport can move more people, more quickly than cars. This is not a streetsblog article, its the LA government. https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/1153807208229957632?s=20

Here is a tweet from LA Metro - the transit authority in one of the most car dependent cities on earth - with a visualization on how public transport can move more people, more quickly than cars. This is not a streetsblog article, its the LA government. https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/1153807208229957632?s=20
I've seen that Tweet when it was first posted and I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted. I said mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion. That Tweet backs up my claims.

FYI, that bus lane is a pilot program to ease the pain of the Blue Line closure which is to bring the overhead wires in the same new system the regional connector is used.

BTW, LA city is often full of sh!t. That isn't from the city of LA. It's from Metro which is the county's transportation authority. Per California's backwards ass law, CalTrans can't build projects at their own will. They have to be approved by local transportation authorities. I know you would likely be in favor of that but it makes regional planning efforts harder and arguably is partly due to the horrid congestion that plagues California.

Here is a study from LA Metro about the 405 widening reduced travel congestion for local street and improvements made from widening the freeway, this is from the city government: https://thesource.metro.net/2015/05/28/study-finds-traffic-on-405-flows-better-over-sepulveda-pass/

That tweet is showing how many more people can travel along a corridor if there are bus specific lanes. Cars may not be able to move much faster, but people surely do (according to the tweet only)

The article you posted referenced a study which came out in 2015, only a year after construction was completed. I wonder how it's working for them in 2019? Here's some counterpoint:

Five years after Sepulveda Pass widening, travel times on the 405 keep getting worse
104
Average drive times through the Sepulveda Pass have stayed the same or increased at all hours of the day
(https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/6/18531505/405-widening-traffic-los-angeles-carpool-lane)
"Metro argued in 2015 that the widening project had cut down overall hours of delay by 37 percent, compared to how long drivers would have spent in traffic if the project had never been constructed."

"For four years, from 2015 to 2019, Inrix measured the length of commutes along the widened stretch of the 405 during a four-week period between January and February. In that time, average commutes in both the north and southbound directions worsened or stayed the same during all hours of the day. Average vehicle speeds also dropped or stayed the same during both peak- and non-peak-hour periods."

"Drivers traveling north between 3 and 4 p.m. experience the most additional delay, with average speeds having dropped from 28 miles per hour in 2015 to 19 miles per hour in 2019. The result of that is an almost 50 percent increase in total travel time, from 23 minutes in 2015 to 34 minutes in 2019."

So yes, widening that highway seemed to help in the short term but it seems as though induced demand strikes again like it does almost every time.

Yes I read the article.

Didn't say you didn't.


The modal share of SLC is, like most cities, heavily in favor of the car.... UDOT is building a handful of new freeways in SLC and opening lanes left and right. It shows induced demand is BS.

No it doesn't. A study concluded that congestion went down because "Salt Lake City, Portland and New Haven improved for similar reasons: sophisticated traffic light optimization, expanded bike lanes and rental possibilities, and better transit options."

That doesn't really address freeway lane additions, let alone traffic counts on those free ways before and after the project(s), which is really the only way to measure any change in demand for use of that freeway, regardless if it's effective demand or induced.


If it were true than all of those new lanes opening up would cause congestion to increase in SLC but that clearly isn't the case.

Induced demand just means that when supply is increased, consumption increases. It doesn't really address whether the increase in supply was adequate for the subsequent increase in consumption. So, you can easily have some increase in "consumption" of a particular freeway after lane additions that does not result in increased congestion. That would just mean that, if induced demand caused an increase in counts after lane additions, the added supply that caused that demand was adequate or more than adequate to accommodate that increase without causing more congestion.

And, in this specific case, the reduced congestion was attributed to several variables, not the single variable of adding lanes on some highways. So, it's entirely possible that adding the lanes led to induced demand, but that was mitigated by all the other transportation infrastructure improvements. That also doesn't mean that induced demand did occur. You can't really make a conclusion based on that single variable, when multiple variables are at play.


Regardless of what the article claims, it shows congestion it becoming less prevalent in SLC in a time when projects like these are occurring

OK. But that doesn't show that "induced demand is BS".

And, to be clear, I'm not trying to make an absolute argument for or against more freeway lanes across the country based on the concept of induced demand in general or based on SLC's study. That'd be silly. Unless there's a way to control for all the other variables in SLC's transportation infrastructure model, you can't make any conclusion about the effect of those specific lanes resulting or not resulting in induced demand for those specific freeways, let alone dismiss the whole concept of induce demand entirely.

The only thing we can derive from it is just what the study said: reduction in congestion was a result of various types of infrastructure improvements.

That tweet is showing how many more people can travel along a corridor if there are bus specific lanes. Cars may not be able to move much faster, but people surely do (according to the tweet only)

The article you posted referenced a study which came out in 2015, only a year after construction was completed. I wonder how it's working for them in 2019? Here's some counterpoint:

Five years after Sepulveda Pass widening, travel times on the 405 keep getting worse
104
Average drive times through the Sepulveda Pass have stayed the same or increased at all hours of the day
(https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/6/18531505/405-widening-traffic-los-angeles-carpool-lane)
"Metro argued in 2015 that the widening project had cut down overall hours of delay by 37 percent, compared to how long drivers would have spent in traffic if the project had never been constructed."

"For four years, from 2015 to 2019, Inrix measured the length of commutes along the widened stretch of the 405 during a four-week period between January and February. In that time, average commutes in both the north and southbound directions worsened or stayed the same during all hours of the day. Average vehicle speeds also dropped or stayed the same during both peak- and non-peak-hour periods."

"Drivers traveling north between 3 and 4 p.m. experience the most additional delay, with average speeds having dropped from 28 miles per hour in 2015 to 19 miles per hour in 2019. The result of that is an almost 50 percent increase in total travel time, from 23 minutes in 2015 to 34 minutes in 2019."

So yes, widening that highway seemed to help in the short term but it seems as though induced demand strikes again like it does almost every time.
I predicted this response anyways and about the recent articles whining of the Sepulveda pass, they conveniently leave out the fact that a single lane in each direction was added to a road that needed 6 and there is defunct bottleneck at the 101. I already made this argument with GoGators about notoriously congested metros and the small addition of a single lane each way added. Shocker, every single road in this area is congested. Sepulveda, Beverly Glen, even local access roads like Roscomare Rd. I live in this in this area and am familiar with it.

I was basically being a smart ass by posting my comment and claiming the government said it so it must be true. Ironically, I was contradicting myself in doing so.

Induced demand didn't strike. Growth and congestion did. Calling it induced demand is a cop out. Why hasn't I-40 Crosstown become gridlock? Wouldn't induced demand cause that to happen? Or should we wait until growth adds more cars to the roads so you can use misnomers like induced demand?

@BDP, I don’t recall saying I didn’t read that article. Perhaps I got it confused as I googled a couple articles and speed read. The SLC one I read as it was posted on SSP and I was interested in it. Same with the Car and Driver article. I will respond to your other points in a bit. Ironically the freeways are clear so I’m heading to midtown to check out the new food hall if it’s open. Induced demand on my part :Smiley122

I predicted this response anyways and about the recent articles whining of the Sepulveda pass, they conveniently leave out the fact that a single lane in each direction was added to a road that needed 6 and there is defunct bottleneck at the 101. I already made this argument with GoGators about notoriously congested metros and the small addition of a single lane each way added. Shocker, every single road in this area is congested. Sepulveda, Beverly Glen, even local access roads like Roscomare Rd. I live in this in this area and am familiar with it.

I was basically being a smart ass by posting my comment and claiming the government said it so it must be true. Ironically, I was contradicting myself in doing so.

Induced demand didn't strike. Growth and congestion did. Calling it induced demand is a cop out. Why hasn't I-40 Crosstown become gridlock? Wouldn't induced demand cause that to happen? Or should we wait until growth adds more cars to the roads so you can use misnomers like induced demand?

adding that one lane cost them more than $1,000,000,000 thats one billion dollars. For what? How much would it cost do do the types of improvements you want to do? Surely there are more efficient options available.

@BDP, I don’t recall saying I didn’t read that article. Perhaps I got it confused as I googled a couple articles and speed read. The SLC one I read as it was posted on SSP and I was interested in it. Same with the Car and Driver article. I will respond to your other points in a bit. Ironically the freeways are clear so I’m heading to midtown to check out the new food hall if it’s open. Induced demand on my part :Smiley122

You didn't say you didn't read it. I didn't say that either. Ha.

Yes, induced demand. Big freeway made you hungry. Ha.

This is such a sorry argument. No one would allow a two lane train track to be built through their neighborhood. Please and examples you give I can you just as many with freeways being built through neighborhoods. Infrastructure has to be built. If you can't handle it move away from the city. Lincoln BLVD isn't an 8 lane being built through Lincoln Terrace. Unfortunately for them or those who have a problem with it their housing development sits in an area where this infrastructure is needed. Plenty of housing additions where it isn't. The world isn't fair. Some housing additions will be closer to large infrastructure and some will be further away.

Haha do what? Ok I’ll play this logic. Life isn’t fair some neighborhood are closer to job centers than others. Either move closer to your job or stop crying about the commute. No one made anyone move to Logan county and work in Norman. If you can’t handle it move. Plenty of houses closer.

And in my “life isn’t fair” argument I’m not spending billions of dollars to make life not fair. I’m making life not fair for free.

Haha do what? Ok I’ll play this logic. Life isn’t fair some neighborhood are closer to job centers than others. Either move closer to your job or stop crying about the commute. No one made anyone move to Logan county and work in Norman. If you can’t handle it move. Plenty of houses closer.

And in my “life isn’t fair” argument I’m not spending billions of dollars to make life not fair. I’m making life not fair for free.
The difference between my logic and yours is mine is reality and job centers exist far from their workers homes. Also life isn’t fair because these 8 lane roads were built through these neighborhoods. That’s the difference.

Haha do what? Ok I’ll play this logic. Life isn’t fair some neighborhood are closer to job centers than others. Either move closer to your job or stop crying about the commute. No one made anyone move to Logan county and work in Norman. If you can’t handle it move. Plenty of houses closer.

And in my “life isn’t fair” argument I’m not spending billions of dollars to make life not fair. I’m making life not fair for free.

You do realize companies would then just move to burbs to attract workers since most of the workers they need are not now nor ever living downtown.

Imagine a company saying they only hire if you live in a 2 mile radius of downtown lol. Or imagine if no roads to get workers downtown then they can’t find workers. I would bet over 90% of downtown workers live more than 2 miles from work and drive.

Business would die in downtown if no roads to get workers there. I would like to see someone name all these city utopias where its all walkable and no cars downtown 2 mile radius. Also, show me a large metro without a major interstate or road running thru it.

Roads are a necessity for all cities. We are late to the growth from small to large city so there should tons of examples of these perfect carless downtown cities to reference.

The difference between my logic and yours is mine is reality and job centers exist far from their workers homes. Also life isn’t fair because these 8 lane roads were built through these neighborhoods. That’s the difference.

Yes, the 8 lane roads were built and yet the tears of the commuter still flow. It’s almost like the 8 lane roads didn’t solve the actual problem

You do realize companies would then just move to burbs to attract workers since most of the workers they need are not now nor ever living downtown.

Imagine a company saying they only hire if you live in a 2 mile radius of downtown lol. Or imagine if no roads to get workers downtown then they can’t find workers. I would bet over 90% of downtown workers live more than 2 miles from work and drive.

Business would die in downtown if no roads to get workers there. I would like to see someone name all these city utopias where its all walkable and no cars downtown 2 mile radius. Also, show me a large metro without a major interstate or road running thru it.

Roads are a necessity for all cities. We are late to the growth from small to large city so there should tons of examples of these perfect carless downtown cities to reference.

Those are some great arguments against points that weren’t made by anyone. Good stuff.

Roads are necessary? Who knew?

Those are some great arguments against points that weren’t made by anyone. Good stuff.

Roads are necessary? Who knew?

Its amazing how toxic you are to posters taking time out of their day to make a post. It seems when you don’t like the poster or info you attack the poster instead of having any dialogue. I’m sure it scares posters away why post here when this is the attitude of someone. Your last 3 replies to me have been nothing related to the topic and added zero to the conversation. Same as your replies to others I’ve noticed. If you don’t like the post then ignore it or add some value instead of constant attacks.

Try to engage posters with substance vice attacks or snarky remarks and maybe more will return to post here. Thats all I have to say about your reply.

Its amazing how toxic you are to posters taking time out of their day to make a post. It seems when you don’t like the poster or info you attack the poster instead of having any dialogue. I’m sure it scares posters away why post here when this is the attitude of someone. Your last 3 replies to me have been nothing related to the topic and added zero to the conversation. Same as your replies to others I’ve noticed. If you don’t like the post then ignore it or add some value instead of constant attacks.

Try to engage posters with substance vice attacks or snarky remarks and maybe more will return to post here. Thats all I have to say about your reply.

I didn’t know how else to respond to the message. You took my post and Began with a laundry list of straw man arguments that had nothing to do with the conversation.

1.Imagine if a company only hired you if you lived within 2 miles. Why would that ever be a thing a company does? I’ve never once said anything about how companies should hire. This wouldn’t even be feasible for anything or anyone. No one has ever suggested such a thing so yes it’s easy to win that argument.

2)Business would die in downtown if there were no roads to ge people there. Again have no idea who is making the argument. Any business would die if there were literally no access points to them.

3) roads are necessary for all cities. Yes road are necessary for every city.

Im not trying to be toxic but I would like to discuss topics that are being discussed. Not a bunch of straw men that no one has even brought up.

Me saying an 8 lane highway next to an important inner neighborhood is not me saying cities should blow up all roads and force employers to only hire people that live next door. This is the reason for my frustration.

Yes, the 8 lane roads were built and yet the tears of the commuter still flow. It’s almost like the 8 lane roads didn’t solve the actual problem
The trains were built and the tears of the pro mass transit still flow. It's almost like building train tracks didn't work.