5 ms·
If the government wants to be the big daddy of traffic control then it should also build sufficient lanes to keep the roads moving.
by someguydave 7y ago
If the government wants to be the big daddy of traffic control then it should also build sufficient lanes to keep the roads moving.
- intopieces 7y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
- devit 7y agoAm I the only one that finds that using that theory to justify not adding capacity is utterly idiotic? If you add capacity and it ends up being all used up, it just means you didn't add enough and should add even more if possible! Kind of like saying that in a famine it's useless to provide more food because it's going to be eaten all up anyway since some people are no longer dying of famine...
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoThere's definitely a balance to be struck (you can't just build lane after lane after lane and expect linear improvement) but yeah, not adding capacity because the capacity will be used is just asinine. It's just something about personally owned vehicles that makes people dumb. Most of those same people wouldn't complain about people using the new capacity if the discussion was about extending bus routes or making subways run more frequently.
- someguydave 7y agoNo, this canard gets raised in every traffic thread. The real reason why “induced demand” exists is because roads in urban areas are usually so under built that any reasonably good road is crushed by extra users once it is built. If governments actually kept sufficient roads available then there would not be induced demand. Alternatively, the government should charge all road users a sufficiently high toll to keep the roads moving.
- someguydave 7y agoThis canard is also used to justify taking taxes meant for road improvement and spending them on dubious public transport schemes. For some reason they are rarely invested in well run commuter buses, for instance.
- intopieces 7y agoYour counter argument does not account for negative externalities resulting from increase road travel. Have you ever been to LA? 16 lanes of traffic and still clogged. Poorer air quality. Suburbs miles from work. Better yet, have you ever been to China? They are already leaning this lesson of induced demand, as have Singapore. From too-low fuel taxes to too wide roads, driving is far too cheap in the US thanks to these subsidies. Wider highways is not the answer. In other words, making highways wider not only does not solve congestion, it makes other problems worse in the process.
- someguydave 7y agoStanding in way of building roads is also destroying potential economic growth. Benefits come with harms; the question is how to balance them.
- intopieces 7y agoHow many roads have been expanded in the Bay Area? Not many. How has the economic growth been? Substantial. The future is remote. Unmitigated sprawl is unnecessary and harmful.
- someguydave 7y agoThe fact that some growth has happened despite a lack of road-building does not disprove that more growth could have happened if more roads were built.
- anthonypasq 7y ago> it just means you didn't add enough and should add even more if possible! houston has 16 lane highways and still has traffic. The population density of cities is simply too high to have cars be the primary form of transportation.
- 0xB31B1B 7y agoTraffic doesn’t work like that. You seem to have a mental model where traffic is modeled like a liquid (traffic has a definite volume and does not expand to fill its container) while many studies show traffic behaves more like a gas (traffic expands to fill its container). Basically, more lanes doesn’t mean less traffic, it generally means the same amount of traffic.
- rrix2 7y agoThis is a really good analogy that i haven't come across before. thanks
- Aloha 7y agoTraffic is a liquid in the short term, but becomes like a gas in the long term as the larger container caused routings to change.
- someguydave 7y agoThat research is wrong. http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=9781 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=9781 https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=5583 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=5583
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- beowulfey 7y agoIt’s generally accepted that more lanes does not equal less traffic, and can often lead to the opposite effect due to the effect of induced demand [1]. I personally believe providing multiple alternative transport options is more effective but obviously that’s a matter of opinion... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
- soup10 7y agoBy that logic we shouldn't upgrade internet infrastructure either.
- geofft 7y agoThe implicit context of this argument is that space is limited and we can't indefinitely expand roads. We almost certainly can indefinitely lay more fiber. That said, the logic does apply to wireless spectrum, which is a limited resource. If we allocate enough spectrum that people can replace wired connections, there will definitely be significant and unsustainable demand for even more bands.
- ec109685 7y agoWith wireless, you can decrease the number of folks served per station to increase effective bandwidth in an area. And the idea you can’t build lanes to reduce traffic assumes there is always enough demand to fill up those lanes.
- tidenly 7y agoSerious question but is there a reason more isn't invested in public transport? I've only ever lived in the UK before Tokyo but America is rich enough I don't see why they can't do what those places do.
- mschuster91 7y agoSimple: sprawl and ultra low density. Public transport thrives in areas where a single bus stop serves hundreds or more of people, but in rural areas it's cost-prohibitive.
- geofft 7y agoWe can also hand over the streets to Taggart Toll Roads, would that be better?
- someguydave 7y agoYes, it would.