Hmm... wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:08 AM:I don't agree completely with the statement that improving unclogged freeways will improve both our economy and personal income. If we look at L.A.'s example, we see congested freeways 24/7. Nonetheless, their economy has flourished in the past years. There needs to be a paradigm shift in San Diego. Let's look to other countries like Korea and Japan in terms of their successful mass transportation. In a friendly, humble manner, I recommend you read about the negative costs of sprawl.

Ralph wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:21 AM:Good job SANDBAG, let's follow AIG's example and spend the citizen's money on an all expense paid vacation. I'll say that their planning is flawed, with a capital "F". The Sprinter is going to eventually bankrupt NCTD. It's not paid for yet, there's outstanding loan which doesn't get paid off until 2034. Read this years budget. The continuance of SANDBAG's "smart growth" projects in this time of economic collapse is beyond stupid. Their administration of public funds, their half-baked ideas of making multiple bus lanes at the expense of commerce was another winner. We shouldn't be sending them to Valley Center for a fling, we should be sending the whole bunch of them packing. Funnel the money into mass transit as in buses, maintaing the existing roadways, end non-essential projects where only their cronies get reap a benefit (profit). Fiscal responsibility begins at home. SANDBAG,(misspelling intentional)and the "Gang at NCTD" should wake up and see what's happening around them.

The San Luis Rey Transit Center is another waste of your money and mine. With additional reductions in service only 9 weeks away; (the routes proposed to be eliminated: 311/312; 324; 338/339; 341/442; 348; 349 A/B; 365; 397), the last thing we need is a new transit center and "smart growth" structures.

Spend our money on maintaining or better yet increasing the level of service here in North County and in San Diego, so people can maintain some level of stability in their lives during this historic period of financial collapse.

George wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:07 AM:Hi, Hmmmm! Good comment about sprawl! It was compared to smart growth in a previous Community Forum ("Smart Growth Isn't So Bright", NCT May 22, 2206) and concluded: "Although sprawl is superior environmentally, economically and psychologically, our regional planners are implementing smart growth as the preferred development method. Regional planning is supposed to create a development blueprint that will enhance -- not reduce -- the quality of life for all. It's time to dump the smart-growth concept entirely and embrace sprawl as the prudent planning method for the health and welfare of ourselves and future generations." The article is still available online using the advanced search feature at the top-right corner of this page.

George wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:42 AM:Hi, Hmmm! Clogged freeways cause a lot of economic problems when goods and services cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Economists will tell you that time wasted in congested traffic is considered an "opportunity cost" because it interferes with effective work.

In "SANDAG Stats Mask Congestion Problems" (NCT, January 15, 2007) you'll find the following information: "Studies quoted by SANDAG claim that the average driver spends 50 hours per year sitting in traffic. The reality is much longer: a recent one-way afternoon drive from Oceanside to Sorrento Valley took 1 hour and 45 minutes. Google maps says it's a trip of 25 minutes. The extra 80 minutes -- let's call it the "SANDAG Delay" -- works out to 666 hours per year, or 82 workdays (four months!) of 8 hours each." Could you get a lot more done if you had an extra four months of workdays in a year? Of course!

If you live in North County and apply for a job in downtown San Diego, you will not be considered for the position because freeway gridlock causes attendance problems. Congestion makes it more difficult for companies to hire the talent they need and for the employees to find the job they want.

In 2004 we voted for congestion relief by approving the TransNet tax. We're paying for congestion relief, but there are no plans for congestion relief. ("Another Transportation Tax Unnecessary", NCT August 10, 2006). That's a problem that must be fixed because free-flowing freeways are necessary for a healthy economy. That translates into more jobs and better pay which will be a benefit for us all.

George wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:05 AM:Hi, Ralph! Speaking of the Sprinter, SANDAG transferred $50,000,000 of TransNet money to the rail system last month because Prop 1B funds from the state haven't materialized. SANDAG says this does not increase the cost of the system above the previous total of $487 million. I still like the idea of selling off the Sprinter and plowing the funds into freeway congestion relief ("Sprinter: A Solution Seeking A Problem", NCT June 13, 2007).

Derek wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:02 PM:A freeway reaches capacity when it is clogged 24/7. It's a waste of money to expand it just so it doesn't get clogged during rush hour. So I think Sandag is doing a fine job balancing the cost of expanding freeways versus keeping them from reaching capacity.

If the freeways getting clogged during rush hour makes it difficult for companies to find the talent they need, then they will stagger their work schedules.

George wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:37 PM:Hi, Derek! You raise an interesting point about the statistical availability of freeway capacity. Are you really claiming that gridlocked traffic at 3 PM isn't clogged because there is a lot of unused capacity at 3 AM? Would you be willing to reconsider and agree that stop-and-go traffic on the freeway at any time of the day means it is congested?

Derek wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:13 PM:George wrote: "Are you really claiming that gridlocked traffic at 3 PM isn't clogged because there is a lot of unused capacity at 3 AM?"

No, I'm claiming that the freeway hasn't reached its full capacity as long as there's any unused capacity.

George wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:08 PM:Hi, Derek! According to the Federal Highway Administration's "High Performance Monitoring System" Appendix N "Procedure for Estimating Highway Capacity", you'll find the capacity calculation is for "passenger cars per hour per lane". This standard shows that full capacity is measured hourly, not daily. If you'd like to check it out for yourself, here's a link to the government website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/appn1.cfm

Derek wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:15 PM:George, that link only talks about measuring peak capacity in terms of vehicles per hour. Even after a freeway gets used enough to achieve gridlock for brief periods twice a day, the daily volume can still increase. (The morning and evening rush hours last longer, more people use the freeway during uncongested periods, etc.) As long as the traffic volume still has room to increase, the freeway hasn't yet reached full (daily) capacity.

The Federal High Administration would naturally want to expand freeways the instant gridlock develops, if not sooner, but this is a waste of our money. Evidently, plenty of people are perfectly willing to put up with gridlock. Not rich people whose time is worth a lot of money (and would therefore be willing to let others pay for unnecessary freeway expansion through taxes), but I'm not one of them.

George wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:37 PM:Hi, Derek! The whole idea is to get those cars to their destination quickly and efficiently. Stop-and-go driving on a freeway posted for 65 MPH shows there is inadequate capacity to meet the need. Reducing the SANDAG Delay to zero is an important transportation goal.

Derek wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:03 PM:George, besides getting vehicles to their destination quickly, it is also important to get them there cost effectively. Expanding a freeway at the first hint of rush hour congestion is a waste of taxpayer money because it doesn't give people a reason to change the way they commute in order to avoid congestion, which would be the cheaper option.

George wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:03 PM:Hi, Derek! Freeways are cheaper to build per passenger than trains, even when you assume solo drivers and trains with every seat full. Buses that use those freeways require a hefty taxpayer subsidy for each ticket purchased, as do the trains.

If I remember correctly, it is not the responsibility of the professional planners to dictate lifestyle changes. Rather, they are supposed to forecast trends and plan the appropriate infrastructure to support those trends. The fact that we have Class-F (worst possible) congestion on our major freeways demonstrates a serious planning failure.

Just north of here in Los Angeles they've created a smart growth zone with high-density mixed-used business/residence buildings. It sounds like a success until you discover that the people living in the buildings don't work in them -- they commute to a job outside the city. Because of the high density development, congestion is much worse in the smart growth area compared to other areas.

Planning to meet our needs instead of dictating lifestyles is much more effective in reducing congestion and improving our quality of life.

Derek wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:12 PM:George, in my first message I mentioned one way people can change the way they commute to avoid congestion. It's cheap and doesn't involve subsidies.

While it isn't the responsibility of professional planners to dictate lifestyle changes, it would be irresponsible of them to reject ways to cut costs simply because those ways involve lifestyle changes.

George wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:58 PM:Hi, Derek! Right you are, you did mention staggered work shifts. The question is, how many people are able to work those staggered shifts? If they're working on an assembly line, they've got to be there when it starts running and stay until it stops. If they're driving a bus that has a strict schedule, staggered shifts just aren't possible. If you're operating a help desk or some other telemarketing activity, you've got to have coverage during the work day.

It would be a good guess that those who can flex their schedule are already doing so. Similarly, those who can carpool are already carpooling. Those who can use mass transit are currently using buses and trains. And bicycles. And walking.

That leaves us with the unaddressed problem of freeway congestion. Since the roads have been neglected for decades, they need some serious attention to recover from past planning failures and to prepare for future expansion. Adding more lanes and building new freeways is the best method to solve that problem.

Walt wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:42 AM:Derek/George; Barring drastic change in daily routines, transportation and other services have to live with the peak demand issue. That’s why trains and buses that should be efficient carriers aren’t and have load factors of only 25% counting the low use off peak trips they must make. Auto load factors are about the same, despite the spin denigrating SOVs. San Diego does quite well with round the clock use of freeways. But freeway deficient LA does about 20% better probably due to flextime. (After much moaning and groaning by employees.) LA also has more parallel non-freeway routes to absorb peaks. For profit organizations will set congestion pain levels they can't overcome to maximize profit. One would expect government systems to respect public response. San Diego does exactly the opposite despite pleas to expand freeways. Out of proportion funding goes to already overbuilt transit producing near zero congestion impact. Instead of improving new freeway utilization, toll managed lanes reduce it. Other services use new technology innovation to reduce or eliminate the peak problem. Thanks to look ahead management, satellites, and fiber optics, we don’t have to wait to call mom on mother’s day, etc, etc! Future automated on demand personal transport will be more responsive.

BJ wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:36 PM:We need mass trans down the middle of I 15

Paul wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:30 PM:Hum, are the Sanbags coming with crystal balls? I don't need one to tell them the economy is in the trash can for at least 5 years. I have never seen two economic forecasters agree! These folks need to have a brain transplant. I wonder how much money they are spending on these experts? But whilst I am at it, hey, Sandbags, send me my consultant fee!

Mike S. wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:43 PM:It may sound unappealing to "dictate lifestyle choices," but the historical emphasis on freeways has been dictating lifestyle choices for decades. I moved to Southern California hoping to bike to work, or at least use public transit. Given the dominance of car culture and land-use planning based on that dominance, I could not practically do either once I tried to buy a home I could afford. Only this last year, with the arrival of the Sprinter, could I get back to the lifestyle I would have chosen for myself years earlier if it had been possible.

When I tell others that I'm riding the Sprinter, people often say "I wish I could do that, but I commute to San Diego." Just as BJ says a few posts ago: "We need mass trans down the middle of I15." Building mass transit isn't dictating lifestyle changes, it's giving people lifestyle choices.

George wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:58 PM:Here's an interesting factoid from the SANDAG website (it appears we have an agreement that good transportation translates into jobs and a good economy):

------------------------------------

SANDAG Executive Director Gary Gallegos was one of 15 witnesses invited on Wednesday, October 29, to testify before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in Washington, D.C.

Throughout the hearing, multiple witnesses and lawmakers stressed that investing in infrastructure not only creates jobs and helps the economy, but also solves the deteriorating infrastructure problem that our nation is experiencing.

During his testimony, Gallegos stressed that with the softening economy, rising unemployment, and population growth, there is an urgent need to rebuild and grow our national transportation system.

---------------------------------------

Of course there's a link! And it's a government website, too:

http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?newsid=564&fuseaction=news.detail

It's really obvious that we need congestion relief on the freeways. The TransNet tax was sold to us that it would expand the freeways and provide congestion relief. TransNet signs next to I-15 clearly say "Traffic Relief". C'mon, SANDAG, let's get going and add those regular lanes that are so desperately needed!

Shell Answer Man wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:44 AM:Live in your vehicle of choice. We live in a high tech age. Be connected and you will never need to get off the highway. Hands on the wheel and gadget to the ear. Round and round and round we go. 'Something Wicked This Way Comes." Ray Bradbury. Stop the world; I want to get off.

Walt wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:12 AM:"Building mass transit isn't dictating lifestyle changes, it's giving people lifestyle choices." Mike S. Personal transport the automobile now provides was the overwhelming market place choice decades ago. Why should taxpayers be spendind $billions to force the lifestyle the majority rejected? With automated personal transport coming on the scene there is opportunity to preseve autos' on-demand flexible travel vital to economy and lifestyles, while using much less land and energy. Foreign countries are taking the lead. USDOT is moribund. I-15 will probably have unused toll managed lanes for a few years. Why waste more on underused mass transit?